Pennsylvania Proposes Tax on Mature Video Games Due to Violence, School Shootings

Blame? How about contributing factor? Something has changed in recent history.
It’s like when Roseanne blamed her sleeping pills for making her racist and the company had to respond with a Tweet that said their pills do not turn you racist.
 
The problem with the insurance idea is that is would require people to register their firearms. Now in past, other countries have used such gun registries to enact confiscation efforts 20-30 years down the road. Australia, for example required people to register their long guns in the 1970s, and then used those lists to do mass confiscation on semi-auto guns in the mid-90s. So American gun owners have learned from this and won't comply with registration laws in the first place. The "SAFE" act New York passed in 2013 required New Yorkers to register certain kinds of scary-looking semi-auto rifles; of the estimated million or so New Yorkers that own these kinds of rifles, only ~40k registered them; the other 96% saw what happened elsewhere and decided to NOPE that idea. And that is with New Yorkers; imagine trying to get southerners or the mountain states or midwest that isn't Chicago to comply. You can't get gun owners to register without them being able to trust that the registration system won't screw them over in 20 years; that sort of trust just is not there politically.


Oh I'm not saying it won't have challenges. But once a couple of these gun owners start serving time after their guns are stolen and not reported then used for a crime. I have a feeling that will change the tune of many more. And perhaps PERHAPS it will stop people from buying guns just to sell them for a markup to people looking to commit further criminal acts with them? As an example. Lets say I had a friend who had served time in prison so could not pass a background check to buy a firearm. And lets say this friend needed a gun to commit a crime. They come to me knowing I own several firearms. We chat some and go to a range together and I let him use a few of mine. He works me and eventually asks if I had a firearm I'd be willing to sell him. Being worked and effectively primed to sell him a gun I do so. Since I'm a freedom loving gun toting fuck the system kind of guy I never registered it. Now he has a un registered fire arm to do as he will with. When my Friend then go's on to get into a heat style shootout using among other weapons a gun I sold him... quite legally without registering it. I have ZERO liability to the acts he commits with the gun.

Now if on that same token we were talking drug dealing and someone OD'd on the drug of choice that I sold to him to sell to someone else we wold all be complicit and RICO acted and in jail together for manslaughter if not murder.

In my first example if I knew I would be protected from criminal liability and had registered and insured my firearm. Taken steps to make sure it is secure.. (I personally love the smart gun idea.) and then filed appropriate paperwork for selling this gun to an individual that presented copies of appropriate license to me.. (Meaning 2 forms of picture ID and such.) Then transferred that license to them and filed it in a timely manner. The ownus is on the state to check that filing to make sure it is accurate and the person who now owns the firearm is a legal owner. If they used Fake ID's that weren't stupid fake looking then I am in the clear because I registered the sell and transfer. If they then commit a crime with that firearm it is on the state and I am again in the clear. BUT if the state finds that this gun was sold to someone and I was duped I am still in the clear and the state can now go on to hunt down the individual based on information I do have. Succeed or fail I am in the clear AND the individual that now has the firearm has a higher chance of being caught and prevented from doing anything.

We have FAR TOO MANY irresponsible gun owners and no way to properly punish them. If your 4 year old kid can get their hands on your loaded firearm alone. THEN IT IS NOT PROPERLY SECURED.

If your nephew/son who is on medication for societal disorders can get your firearms you probably don't have them properly secured. (Or probably maybe shouldn't even have them if they have access to them/your home.).

With mass shootings being a damn near weekly event in the US we need to do something about it.

Just like we try to do things about heart disease and auto accidents.
 
Oh I'm not saying it won't have challenges. But once a couple of these gun owners start serving time after their guns are stolen and not reported then used for a crime. I have a feeling that will change the tune of many more. And perhaps PERHAPS it will stop people from buying guns just to sell them for a markup to people looking to commit further criminal acts with them? As an example. Lets say I had a friend who had served time in prison so could not pass a background check to buy a firearm. And lets say this friend needed a gun to commit a crime. They come to me knowing I own several firearms. We chat some and go to a range together and I let him use a few of mine. He works me and eventually asks if I had a firearm I'd be willing to sell him. Being worked and effectively primed to sell him a gun I do so. Since I'm a freedom loving gun toting fuck the system kind of guy I never registered it. Now he has a un registered fire arm to do as he will with. When my Friend then go's on to get into a heat style shootout using among other weapons a gun I sold him... quite legally without registering it. I have ZERO liability to the acts he commits with the gun.

Now if on that same token we were talking drug dealing and someone OD'd on the drug of choice that I sold to him to sell to someone else we wold all be complicit and RICO acted and in jail together for manslaughter if not murder.

In my first example if I knew I would be protected from criminal liability and had registered and insured my firearm. Taken steps to make sure it is secure.. (I personally love the smart gun idea.) and then filed appropriate paperwork for selling this gun to an individual that presented copies of appropriate license to me.. (Meaning 2 forms of picture ID and such.) Then transferred that license to them and filed it in a timely manner. The ownus is on the state to check that filing to make sure it is accurate and the person who now owns the firearm is a legal owner. If they used Fake ID's that weren't stupid fake looking then I am in the clear because I registered the sell and transfer. If they then commit a crime with that firearm it is on the state and I am again in the clear. BUT if the state finds that this gun was sold to someone and I was duped I am still in the clear and the state can now go on to hunt down the individual based on information I do have. Succeed or fail I am in the clear AND the individual that now has the firearm has a higher chance of being caught and prevented from doing anything.

We have FAR TOO MANY irresponsible gun owners and no way to properly punish them. If your 4 year old kid can get their hands on your loaded firearm alone. THEN IT IS NOT PROPERLY SECURED.

If your nephew/son who is on medication for societal disorders can get your firearms you probably don't have them properly secured. (Or probably maybe shouldn't even have them if they have access to them/your home.).

With mass shootings being a damn near weekly event in the US we need to do something about it.

Just like we try to do things about heart disease and auto accidents.
We have 24/7 access to social media broadcasting every intimate detail of our lives around the globe.

We have media outlets glorifying mass shootings.

Magazines putting terrorists on their covers that have killed my friends.

A societal collapse of family values where people are turning to drugs and crime.

Parents that prop their kids in front of screens instead of sending them outside to scrape their knees.

An entire class of people that abuse the welfare system taking money out of hard working folks.

Career politicians that have totally fucked the system.

You think irresponsible gun owners are an issue? The issue is far, far deeper than that.
 
The problem isn't guns and it isn't video games. When someone has the desire to kill a group of civilians therein lies the problem. Why do they have this desire? What happened along the way to make someone want this?

Do you think removing guns from individuals that want this will diffuse them? We still don't know the cause of it, we look to what hobbies and activities each one was involved in but that won't provide an answer as that just shows a correlation and not a causation.

Not saying this needs ignored but it needs to be handled carefully and correctly. Taxing or taking away or restricting rights won't fix it. Often crimes correlate with money insecurity, so will taking more money from people make it better?

Many hold to the truth that an armed society creates a level of balance in the system, and of that group that believes taking their guns and restricting them could lead to trouble as well. And I don't blame that either, I have no intention of handing over my firearms if someone comes t

to the door to collect them. Nor would I register any if required to. People don't declare their out of state taxes they owe for online shopping, you really think people will register guns?

And as far as 'smart guns', hell no, all police, military, government agencies best be required to have it as well then. If they won't use it, then no one else should either. Because you certainly wouldn't want a criminal or enemy to get ahold of your firearm and use it on you either.

edit: any further responses will come as edits, I like my post count number atm.
 
Oh I'm not saying it won't have challenges. But once a couple of these gun owners start serving time after their guns are stolen and not reported then used for a crime. I have a feeling that will change the tune of many more. And perhaps PERHAPS it will stop people from buying guns just to sell them for a markup to people looking to commit further criminal acts with them? As an example. Lets say I had a friend who had served time in prison so could not pass a background check to buy a firearm. And lets say this friend needed a gun to commit a crime. They come to me knowing I own several firearms. We chat some and go to a range together and I let him use a few of mine. He works me and eventually asks if I had a firearm I'd be willing to sell him. Being worked and effectively primed to sell him a gun I do so. Since I'm a freedom loving gun toting fuck the system kind of guy I never registered it. Now he has a un registered fire arm to do as he will with. When my Friend then go's on to get into a heat style shootout using among other weapons a gun I sold him... quite legally without registering it. I have ZERO liability to the acts he commits with the gun.

Now if on that same token we were talking drug dealing and someone OD'd on the drug of choice that I sold to him to sell to someone else we wold all be complicit and RICO acted and in jail together for manslaughter if not murder.

In my first example if I knew I would be protected from criminal liability and had registered and insured my firearm. Taken steps to make sure it is secure.. (I personally love the smart gun idea.) and then filed appropriate paperwork for selling this gun to an individual that presented copies of appropriate license to me.. (Meaning 2 forms of picture ID and such.) Then transferred that license to them and filed it in a timely manner. The ownus is on the state to check that filing to make sure it is accurate and the person who now owns the firearm is a legal owner. If they used Fake ID's that weren't stupid fake looking then I am in the clear because I registered the sell and transfer. If they then commit a crime with that firearm it is on the state and I am again in the clear. BUT if the state finds that this gun was sold to someone and I was duped I am still in the clear and the state can now go on to hunt down the individual based on information I do have. Succeed or fail I am in the clear AND the individual that now has the firearm has a higher chance of being caught and prevented from doing anything.

We have FAR TOO MANY irresponsible gun owners and no way to properly punish them. If your 4 year old kid can get their hands on your loaded firearm alone. THEN IT IS NOT PROPERLY SECURED.

If your nephew/son who is on medication for societal disorders can get your firearms you probably don't have them properly secured. (Or probably maybe shouldn't even have them if they have access to them/your home.).

With mass shootings being a damn near weekly event in the US we need to do something about it.

Just like we try to do things about heart disease and auto accidents.

Gross.
 
The not selling M rated games thing to minors is just a store policy; California did have a law about it, but as I mentioned the Supreme Court struck it down. Any of those stores could change that policy and sell to minors with nothing more than a PR hit. That does bring about an interesting legal question - has anyone ever challenged those store policies on an age discrimination basis? Age is one of the standard protected classes written into most civil rights laws alongside religion and race. If a flight training school had a policy refusing Muslims, or a car rental place wouldn't rent to Asians, it seems you would get lawsuits right away. So why can stores choose to not sell M rated games to people who can legally buy them? The closest I have seen is a case out of Oregon, where an 18 year old woman sued Walmart for not selling her a rifle (Walmart having recently decided to only sell ammo & firearms to those 21 and over). She won the case in the state court there, with Walmart found to be in violation of Oregon's Civil Rights laws.

Hey, if [H] has any class-action lawyers reading this, I just found your next payday!

That is an interesting thought to ponder. The rating is just a suggestion, and (in most places) not a requirement. I assume the courts could side with that. I was also thinking about the various new laws which raise age requirements to 21 to purchase long guns in some of the states. I assume the results will end up being the same with video games.

Guys.. and girls guns just make it a hell of a lot easier to kill effectively and at range. We need better controls and resposibility around who has them. My suggestion require all guns to be insured for liability. The insurance companies will protect their profits and establish rules of gun ownership for cheaper insurance. This will promote technology and solutions be created that fit this. No new restricts on gun laws are needed. Just some up front investment on an insurable solution to own guns. Someone steals your gun and commits a crime and it's been greater that xx hours since your gun was stolen that you didn't report it... you're liable for their actions as well.

But to get back to video games.. How are they going to do this. A state tax would go nowhere fast as people would just drive across a border to get better deals or order online from somewhere that used an honor system for taxes. A federal tax would never pass currently. I don't think there is much to fear from this other than calling out a idiot on being stupid.

Current popular shooters are nowhere near realistic so they can't even use that any more. (I'm looking at fornite.)

That sounds about as smart as taxing video games. As in, its really dumb.
 
......
Guns are designed to kill. Period end of story. If someone uses your gun to kill someone because you didn't properly secure it ...................


Bullshit


1st, you are not responsible for hat someone else does period, unless they are your minor and you their guardian.

2nd, There may be a State or two that have laws regarding "properly securing firearms", but it's only a couple and even then, they are bullshit. I have at least 12 guns loaded ready to rock laying around in different places in my home, bed stand, sock drawer, closet, two on my computer desk, etc. There is no law that requires I keep them locked up, unloaded, or having a safety device installed or attached.

If you live in some State with laws like these that's your problem, but you need to refrain from talking like it's everyone's problem because it certainly is not.
 
Guys.. and girls guns just make it a hell of a lot easier to kill effectively and at range. We need better controls and resposibility around who has them. My suggestion require all guns to be insured for liability. The insurance companies will protect their profits and establish rules of gun ownership for cheaper insurance. This will promote technology and solutions be created that fit this. No new restricts on gun laws are needed. Just some up front investment on an insurable solution to own guns. Someone steals your gun and commits a crime and it's been greater that xx hours since your gun was stolen that you didn't report it... you're liable for their actions as well.

But to get back to video games.. How are they going to do this. A state tax would go nowhere fast as people would just drive across a border to get better deals or order online from somewhere that used an honor system for taxes. A federal tax would never pass currently. I don't think there is much to fear from this other than calling out a idiot on being stupid.

Current popular shooters are nowhere near realistic so they can't even use that any more. (I'm looking at fornite.)


I'm glad we both can vote.

You think that I should be subjected to Federally mandated insurance controls for my right to own a firearm?

Let's put a test to this, how does anyone know I have a firearm? There is no Federal registration of firearms because it's unconstitutional. It's seen as a step toward government confiscation. You idea is already dead.

You can not prevent gun deaths any more than you can prevent people from choking on peanuts. The very idea that there is anything you can do to "prevent" is fiction. If you want to lessen the number of gun related accidents and crimes try early introduction and training to firearms coupled with people learning not to be such shit-heals to each other.

You strike me as the kind of person that believes we can engineer and control human behavior through laws and insurance and almost anything except what actually works. You have to change values, mores, what is and isn't acceptable is far more of a control. How many times do you hear someone say something like "go ahead and call the cops, they won't do anything ...." This is a person who doesn't care about the laws, controls, etc that you would place on him. But if he actually didn't behave like an asshole to start with, where are we now?

We have to learn to be decent to each other again. We have to learn to value that in each other. Personal responsibility needs to be expected, demanded even, and those who shirk it should meet with scorn and social repercussion.

I think you should stop looking for ways that you can avoid the only thing that actually works because you don't like the social constructs required to pull it off. That's what has happened by the way. The social constructs that used to help control bad behavior are weakened, we have a shittier world as a result, and people like yourself are looking for artificial controls to replace them with.
 
Last edited:
Oh I'm not saying it won't have challenges. But once a couple of these gun owners start serving time after their guns are stolen and not reported then used for a crime. I have a feeling that will change the tune of many more. And perhaps PERHAPS it will stop people from buying guns just to sell them for a markup to people looking to commit further criminal acts with them? As an example. Lets say I had a friend who had served time in prison so could not pass a background check to buy a firearm. And lets say this friend needed a gun to commit a crime. They come to me knowing I own several firearms. We chat some and go to a range together and I let him use a few of mine. He works me and eventually asks if I had a firearm I'd be willing to sell him. Being worked and effectively primed to sell him a gun I do so. Since I'm a freedom loving gun toting fuck the system kind of guy I never registered it. ..............


Where do you live man?

Do you own, or have you ever owned a gun?

You don't sound like you do. I'm not going to knock you very hard for a personal choice, but it really sounds like you want to make choices for the rest of us as well.

There is no Federal Law requiring firearm registration for gun ownership, it's unconstitutional.

You need to take a look at reality;

Gun-registration-map.jpg


This is about as close as you are ever going to get to your dream of gun registration and control in the US of A.
 
Oh I'm not saying it won't have challenges. But once a couple of these gun owners start serving time after their guns are stolen and not reported then used for a crime. I have a feeling that will change the tune of many more.

I suggest you take a look at Canada's attempt to register long guns; in the mid 90's they passed a law requiring everyone to register their long guns; while the initial cost was projected to be $2 million, the whole boondoggle ended up costing over $1 billion before they gave up on the effort and shut the registry down in 2012. Gun owners by and by just didn't comply. If Canada couldn't get a gun registry up and running, what chance do you think it would have in the US?
 
Last edited:
If we're on the topic of gun laws. At the very least I think gun laws should be same across the board. If a specific conviction is preventing you from buying a gun in one state, you shouldn't be able to drive to another state to bypass that road block.
 
If we're on the topic of gun laws. At the very least I think gun laws should be same across the board. If a specific conviction is preventing you from buying a gun in one state, you shouldn't be able to drive to another state to bypass that road block.

Which will stop exactly zero criminals that will being using their gun illegally.
 
I love your rebuttal. It's concise and expansive in meaning all at once. Your intelligence astounds me.

I love your lack of understanding of the EDIT function, with the multiple posts and all, and the lack of understanding of the "Quote multiple posters in the same post", as you denigrate other posters intelligence.

Way to go, idiot. (y)

Let your Freak Flag Fly.


If you can't understand the problem, you are unlikely to have a clue on the solution to said problem. :)

Thanks for participating, tho; you made a bunch of us feel better. :D

And lol.
 
If we're on the topic of gun laws. At the very least I think gun laws should be same across the board. If a specific conviction is preventing you from buying a gun in one state, you shouldn't be able to drive to another state to bypass that road block.

Can you give an example of this? If a person was convicted of a felony in the past, it would get reported to the NICS and would show up when a gun store in any state files the 4473 background check form, and the gun store would then deny the sale. Someone doing a private sale of course will still be able to buy guns, since the NICS isn't available to the general public, but they wouldn't have to drive across state lines to do so. It would be interesting to allow the general public access to the NICS; of course it would end up being used for things besides gun sales; I for one am looking for a daycare provider right now, and would prefer to hire one that has a background clean enough to purchase firearms.
 
Your counter point was truly compelling and added to the conversation at hand. Thank you.

Your "point" was exceptionally stupid. You can't respond to mental retardation in written form with a "counter point". Did you even read what you wrote? It makes zero sense when it comes to preventing violence and you even contradict yourself in your sixth sentence. I understand that in 2018 people feel you must have a "I sound smart" suggestion for everything, but in most instances you end up looking like a moron when you babble out words loosely strung together.

If we're on the topic of gun laws. At the very least I think gun laws should be same across the board. If a specific conviction is preventing you from buying a gun in one state, you shouldn't be able to drive to another state to bypass that road block.

That is more or less how it is currently. If you're a felon or have a misdemeanor such as domestic violence (which can be just verbal) you can't purchase a firearm anywhere. Even if the laws are different in another state. Go to a place like California and get charged a felony for violating for one of their unique state firearm laws and you can no longer purchase a firearm anywhere else in the country. For example, lets say you accidentally attach another grip to a rifle in CA and weren't aware you were violating the states assault weapons ban. You get caught and charged as a felon, even though it is perfectly fine in most other states. Even if you move to OR, AZ or NV, you still can't purchase any firearm type because you're a felon.
 
Conviction may have been a poor choice of words as that is federally regulated but there the "boyfriend" loophole that allows domestic abusers to buy guns if they no longer live with the abused. I believe that loophole still exists in some states.

I still think all restrictions should be the same across the board.

Here in Canada I dont believe there are any province to province laws. I believe its federal laws and regulations across the country.

We also have far more restrictions and lengthier process to obtain a gun license. If I decide to get a gun I believe my wife or a close family/friend has to also provide a reference that I'm mentally competent enough to own a gun. We also don't have the gun culture up here and don't share the same feeling of entitlement to gun ownership as the US.

Coincidentally we also have far fewer shootings and waaay less mass shootings.



Onto the original topic though which I haven't commented on yet. I think taxing anything to curb violence will do nothing.
 
We also have far more restrictions and lengthier process to obtain a gun license. If I decide to get a gun I believe my wife or a close family/friend has to also provide a reference that I'm mentally competent enough to own a gun. We also don't have the gun culture up here and don't share the same feeling of entitlement to gun ownership as the US.

Coincidentally we also have far fewer shootings and waaay less mass shootings.

Lots of different things between us. I can only speak of what I see around in ohio but just driving to/from work just shows me how many people are just on the edge. People lose their mind if you decide to stop for a yellow light. I don't know how the average anger level is up where you live.

I think someone who isn't 'stable' and is overly angry likely will find themselves playing violent games. But then we string them together in a way that violent games led someone to shooting.

I still hold to we need to fix the problem of why people desire to kill people with no relation to them (ie random shooting as opposed to dispute or some type of fight or argument).

Yea I agree taxing is just to make someone more money off these things, which really disgusts me.
 
I think someone who isn't 'stable' and is overly angry likely will find themselves playing violent games.

NO there is no evidence to prove that. 99% of people who play M rated games or any games are good moral people that dont commit violent crimes.
 
NO there is no evidence to prove that. 99% of people who play M rated games or any games are good moral people that dont commit violent crimes.

Not that you quoted a source, but still what I said could nest within what you stated. We are really only looking at maybe a couple dozen people for these shootings. So there really won't be any evidence for this as the data is too small. So as I said we just try and find out what habits or likes they have hoping to find some sort of marker that could be used to identify or even be a cause.

So yes, you could even say all violent people play violent games and also could say that 99% of people who play violent games are non-violent people. Not a valid stat for either of course but try to look at life with a more open mind and read back further than just one post so you can argue.
 
Not going to lie, as a relatively newer regular poster on these forums of geeks and gamers, I figured ya'll would be anti-gun.

Color me impressed. :LOL:
 
Not going to lie, as a relatively newer regular poster on these forums of geeks and gamers, I figured ya'll would be anti-gun.

Color me impressed. :LOL:

You thought that about this group of rednecks here? We are all atari gamers quickly working up into sitting on our porches with shotguns to chase away the darn kids!
 
You thought that about this group of rednecks here? We are all atari gamers quickly working up into sitting on our porches with shotguns to chase away the darn kids!
All my buddies that I wheel and hunt with don't even own a computer. :LOL:
 
nice. The group I go shooting with, all have gaming pc's. Its fun when what used to be completely different groups are merged.
I try to explain to them that I was up late last night shooting for 5/8 Mythic with my guildmates (this was months ago) but ran out of time. They look at me like I grew a second head.
 
I love your lack of understanding of the EDIT function, with the multiple posts and all, and the lack of understanding of the "Quote multiple posters in the same post", as you denigrate other posters intelligence.

Way to go, idiot. (y)

Let your Freak Flag Fly.


If you can't understand the problem, you are unlikely to have a clue on the solution to said problem. :)

Thanks for participating, tho; you made a bunch of us feel better. :D

And lol.


I'm surprised you understood what I was typing at all. I fly though here during my day and drop posts from time to time. And no I don't go back and edit out my mistakes very often. I figure if you can't understand my thoughts you never really will, and in truth it isn't worth my time to explain them to someone who gives churlish one word responses.

To be on topic though. I do believe that taxing the sale of violent video games is only, in the long run, going to hurt local retailers in that state. People have by and large accepted the convenience of digital delivery for video games. Console's being the last holdout. Once digital delivery is fully accepted bypassing these additional taxes imposed by states will be simple for anyone looking for a deal. Congratulations state laws that only protect the state from future income possibilities.
 
To be on topic though. I do believe that taxing the sale of violent video games is only, in the long run, going to hurt local retailers in that state. People have by and large accepted the convenience of digital delivery for video games. Console's being the last holdout. Once digital delivery is fully accepted bypassing these additional taxes imposed by states will be simple for anyone looking for a deal. Congratulations state laws that only protect the state from future income possibilities.

You missed the Supreme Court decision South Dakota vs Wayfair Inc. that occurred earlier this year, which reversed an earlier Supreme Court decision and allows states to collect sales taxes on purchases made by state residents from out of state retailers, with certain conditions. So Pennsylvania could require Sony, MS, Valve, ect to collect this tax for them on sales to PA residents. Something similar is already occurring in Chicago, which has a 9% "entertainment tax" on various electronic services; Chicago has gotten a bunch of services, like Netflix, Spotify, and Sony's Playstation Network to collect the that extra sales tax on Chicago users. That said, since this specific tax targets media by content, it is very likely that the courts will strike it down for First Amendment reasons.
 
Back
Top