• Rhode Island Representative Introduces Legislation to Increase Tax on Violent Video Games
    49 replies, posted
[quote]State Representative Robert Nardolillo III of Rhode Island is introducing new legislation that will require violent video games with a ESRB rating of "Mature" or higher to be taxed higher than other games. The added tax, as proposed by Nardolillo, will be used to "increase mental health and counseling resources in schools."[/quote] [quote]"There is evidence that children exposed to violent video games at a young age tend to act more aggressively than those who are not,” Nardolillo said. “This bill would give schools the additional resources needed to help students deal with that aggression in a positive way.”[/quote] [url]https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/ri-representative-wants-to-increase-tax-on-violent-games-w516967[/url] [url]http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20180221/ri-bill-would-tax-violent-video-games-to-pay-for-mental-health-counseling-in-schools[/url] [url]https://techraptor.net/content/rhode-island-representative-proposes-violent-game-tax[/url] You see Robert Nardolillo, you're wrong and this is just like democrats trying to ban guns with scary sounding made up things. [url]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180116131317.htm[/url] [url]https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-end-the-debate-about-video-games-and-violence-91607[/url] [url]http://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-say-there-is-no-link-between-video-games-and-violence/[/url] Although I do like the fact that it would allegedly go to mental health counseling, but don't like how it would [I]only[/I] be for schools.
[quote]The added tax, as proposed by Nardolillo, will be used to "increase mental health and counseling resources in schools."[/quote] Buy violent video games to support mental health in schools!
I feel like gun control supporters are expected to know the intricacies of every individual model of gun and their various attachments and accessories before daring to even think about weighing in on the debate, while their opponents can just throw out stuff like "its the videogames" with no evidence
This is such a weird position to take, instead of taxing it how about taking some parental responsibility and stop giving children games rated mature in the first place.
Blame the virtual guns. Not the real guns. Republicans make all sorts of sense don't they.
Fuck the taxes let's throw em in the harbor
The right of the people to keep and play videogames shall not be infringed!
Just fucking take us back to the stone age, jesus christ, restart the human race already, please.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53152564]I feel like gun control supporters are expected to know the intricacies of every individual model of gun and their various attachments and accessories before daring to even think about weighing in on the debate, while their opponents can just throw out stuff like "its the videogames" with no evidence[/QUOTE] Do you honestly believe that this is representative of the actual arguments against gun control? Morons agreeing with something yet failing to properly argue in favor of it doesn't make that thing actually wrong. You're also conveniently ignoring the morons who don't know the first thing about guns (see: anyone who says "assault weapon") on your "side".
[quote]"There is evidence that children exposed to violent video games at a young age tend to act more aggressively than those who are not,” Nardolillo said.[/quote] Source?
[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;53152644]Just fucking take us back to the stone age, jesus christ, restart the human race already, please.[/QUOTE] Back to the dark ages, at least death will be a regular thing then.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53152564]I feel like gun control supporters are expected to know the intricacies of every individual model of gun and their various attachments and accessories before daring to even think about weighing in on the debate, while their opponents can just throw out stuff like "its the videogames" with no evidence[/QUOTE] Nah, we just don’t appreciate blatant misrepresentation or misinformation like claiming an assault weapon can “shoot 30 rounds in half a second” or saying that 50 BMG rounds are “heat seeking bullets” which “cook the deer for you” [media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ[/media] Getting back on topic, this tax is dumb and they should feel dumb.
[QUOTE=geel9;53152671]Do you honestly believe that this is representative of the actual arguments against gun control? Morons agreeing with something yet failing to properly argue in favor of it doesn't make that thing actually wrong. You're also conveniently ignoring the morons who don't know the first thing about guns (see: anyone who says "assault weapon") on your "side".[/QUOTE] I don't know how you read that and come out of it with "but that doesn't make it wrong". No shit. That's not what he said. He's pointing out how fucking lopsided the arguments surrounding gun control are, and how it's the pro-gun side that has the most leeway to dip into absurdity and delusion
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53152761]and how it's the pro-gun side that has the most leeway to dip into absurdity and delusion[/QUOTE] [citation needed]
im honestly for this just cuz we need more mental health resources and the money has to come from somewhere
[QUOTE=WrathOfCat;53152768]im honestly for this just cuz we need more mental health resources and the money has to come from somewhere[/QUOTE] Get the funding from the same place that all government funding is being screwed over: corporate tax evasion. Stop CEO's from stealing from their country by exploiting offshore tax havens and bullshit tax breaks. The republicans in our government try to push for media censorship in response to shootings, the democrats in our government push for uninformed gun regulation, but because everybody's sucking that corporate dick no one actually wants to attack these problems at the root by properly funding mental health programs using the money that corporations are stealing from the government year after year.
[QUOTE=geel9;53152762][citation needed][/QUOTE] I think expecting teachers to bring a gun to school is very absurd. [QUOTE=Revenge282;53152803]I'm not sure what his personal stance is, but most, if not all, of the people mentioning teachers carrying have been pretty clear about them carrying if they want to. Essentially, it's getting rid of the idea of "gun-free zones". Just so you don't get the wrong idea and someone jumps on you for it.[/QUOTE] Still absurd
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53152793]I think expecting teachers to bring a gun to school is very absurd.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what his personal stance is, but most, if not all, of the people mentioning teachers carrying have been pretty clear about them carrying if they want to. Essentially, it's getting rid of the idea of "gun-free zones". Just so you don't get the wrong idea and someone jumps on you for it.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53152674]Source?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/tv-violence.aspx"]https://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/tv-violence.aspx[/URL] [URL="https://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/protect.aspx"]https://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/protect.aspx[/URL] [URL="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/204790"]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/204790[/URL] [URL="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02287.x"]http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02287.x[/URL] Some interesting reading on the subject (this isn't comprehensive, if you want to do your own review, just google scholar "violent media study" and prepare to be bombarded with literature). The first two are short overview statements by the APA (American Psychological Association) that kind of contradict one another, whereas the last two are actual scientific publications that talk about studies on the efforts. (the last one is only the abstract, I don't want to post a link to the PDF here because I'm not sure how those links are treated. If you want the paper, google the title and you can dl it for free from Iowa State University.) I've also come to realize that a lot of scientific literature doesn't necessarily give you a rock solid conclusion, usually its based on a lot of evidence being compiled over time, but the general consensus of these papers points to there being a modest effect of violent media on both short term and long term thinking in regards to aggression and sensitivity to others. I doubt the politicians making remarks on this are the kind of people that spend their days delving through scientific journals, or even have half a brain to actually digest this information (I love working in science, but I sure as hell hate how dense scientific writing is.) But the scientific consensus points to it being complicated, but not unfounded.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53152793]I think expecting teachers to bring a gun to school is very absurd.[/QUOTE] When did I say anything about that? You don't get to just point to your favorite idiots and say "they represent every idea related to what I disagree with"
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53152564]I feel like gun control supporters are expected to know the intricacies of every individual model of gun and their various attachments and accessories before daring to even think about weighing in on the debate, while their opponents can just throw out stuff like "its the videogames" with no evidence[/QUOTE] The evidence actually says that it's certainly not the videogames. Every study done on the topic, AFAIK, has said that there is no correlation between playing violent video games and violent behaviour.
Surely you don't think that because there's idiots on one end there aren't idiots on others? How about "shoots 30 rounds in half a second"? Or "assault weapon" (or, my favorite, "assault-style" weapon). How about thinking "AR" stands for assault rifle? How about thinking an AR-15 is fully-automatic? How about the statement that "if you don't want to nullify the second amendment you want [i]children to be slaughtered.[/i]"? There are idiots everywhere. You don't get to just point out the ones on the "other side" and pretend yours don't exist.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53152674]Source?[/QUOTE] The brown, smelly depth of Nardolillo's arse.
[QUOTE=geel9;53152932]Surely you don't think that because there's idiots on one end there aren't idiots on others? How about "shoots 30 rounds in half a second"? Or "assault weapon" (or, my favorite, "assault-style" weapon). How about thinking "AR" stands for assault rifle? How about thinking an AR-15 is fully-automatic? How about the statement that "if you don't want to nullify the second amendment you want [i]children to be slaughtered.[/i]"? There are idiots everywhere. You don't get to just point out the ones on the "other side" and pretend yours don't exist.[/QUOTE] Did I ever say there aren't idiots on both sides? I'm pretty sure I never said anything like that. No you didn't say it but I brought it up because I'm seeing it bandied around a lot.
this is bullshit [QUOTE]The added tax, as proposed by Nardolillo, will be used to "increase mental health and counseling resources in schools."[/QUOTE] forgive me if i don't believe it.
[QUOTE=nAXiom090;53153032]this is bullshit forgive me if i don't believe it.[/QUOTE] Yeah I bet it goes straight into his pockets.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53152564]I feel like gun control supporters are expected to know the intricacies of every individual model of gun and their various attachments and accessories before daring to even think about weighing in on the debate, while their opponents can just throw out stuff like "its the videogames" with no evidence[/QUOTE] yep, its part of the three D's, Distract, Derail, Deride. you derail by saying that Assault Rifle isn't a thing yada yada yada, deride by saying they clearly don't understand anything because they used a generic term for something, and distract by saying violent video games or mental health, or sanctuary city loving liberals were at fault
[quote]The added tax, as proposed by Nardolillo, will be used to "increase mental health and counseling resources in schools." [/quote] Of course it will, buck-o.
[QUOTE=Reviized;53152867][URL="https://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/tv-violence.aspx"]https://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/tv-violence.aspx[/URL] [URL="https://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/protect.aspx"]https://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/protect.aspx[/URL] [URL="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/204790"]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/204790[/URL] [URL="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02287.x"]http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02287.x[/URL] Some interesting reading on the subject (this isn't comprehensive, if you want to do your own review, just google scholar "violent media study" and prepare to be bombarded with literature). The first two are short overview statements by the APA (American Psychological Association) that kind of contradict one another, whereas the last two are actual scientific publications that talk about studies on the efforts. (the last one is only the abstract, I don't want to post a link to the PDF here because I'm not sure how those links are treated. If you want the paper, google the title and you can dl it for free from Iowa State University.) I've also come to realize that a lot of scientific literature doesn't necessarily give you a rock solid conclusion, usually its based on a lot of evidence being compiled over time, but the general consensus of these papers points to there being a modest effect of violent media on both short term and long term thinking in regards to aggression and sensitivity to others. I doubt the politicians making remarks on this are the kind of people that spend their days delving through scientific journals, or even have half a brain to actually digest this information (I love working in science, but I sure as hell hate how dense scientific writing is.) But the scientific consensus points to it being complicated, but not unfounded.[/QUOTE] I'd seen a couple of these studies before - but I think they typically lay the blame more in the direction of "media" whereas political efforts have been specifically directed at video games (or in the past, whatever the new form of media is)
[QUOTE=Mrfantasticool;53152596]This is such a weird position to take, instead of taxing it how about taking some parental responsibility and stop giving children games rated mature in the first place.[/QUOTE] This is the biggest thing that would go a long way with stopping school shootings. No child has ever walked into a gun store, submitted themselves to a background check and passed, handed over $400+ dollars, and then walked out a week later with a gun. That doesn't happen. Not even with weapons that don't require a waiting period Parents need to lock their shit up. Hide it. or Both. No student has ever committed a school shooting with their own gun, it's always with someone else's. And no parent should be buying a kid anything other than pellet rifles and maybe bolt action .22's to learn the fundamentals of shooting and safety. They make some high quality bitchin' pellet rifles these days, and they're cheap. Buy your kid those
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.