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

This is just using the tax system to punish a group they don't like, and grab some cash at the same time. If that isn't government corruption, I don't know what is.
 
I see that no one else in this thread (may have missed it, but....) pointed this little jewel out, according to the article, a Republican introduced this bill.

Most republican politicians are globalist RINO swamp creatures.
 
I went to the range last week, why didn’t my guns kill anyone?

Your gun was obviously brought up in a violent video game free household. Imagine if your gun was desensitized to violence from all those games, it would have been shooting up everyone at the range.... The only fix can be a sin tax on violent games, because that's been proven to work on other things like alcohol, tobacco, weed etc..... /s
 
Since Google is hard for you, wtf are you doing on [H] if you can't eve use a web browser, I'll spoon feed it to you. Link to AFT firearms tax: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...rearms-ammunition-and-implements-war-firearms
Sorry, that was a little mean spirited. You clearly understand how a web browser works, otherwise you wouldn't be on [H]. Do you genuinely not understand how firearms sales in the U.S. work, as many people don't, or did you ignore how firearm sales work in the U.S. because it didn't fit your narrative?
 
I see that no one else in this thread (may have missed it, but....) pointed this little jewel out, according to the article, a Republican introduced this bill.

I am pretty sure anyone not in hard core denial of basic reality would have assumed this was a republican sponsored bill. The right is the moral panic party the left is the Baathist insane social justice party the only people who conflate the two are hardcore rightwingers that wwant to blame everything on the other side.

Basically in-case anyone is having a hard time with the difference, if it's an oppressive anti freedom piece of legislation that tells you what you can't/shouldn't do it's probably from the right.. (I.E you can''t marry another man/woman, you can't smoke weed you cant, have fun...) if it's an oppressive bullshit piece of legislation trying to compel you to do something you don't want to do (you must use people preferred pronouns, you must install all gender bathrooms, you must sell a cake to that gay couple even if it violates your deeply held religious beliefs) it's probably from the left.

They're both oppressive BS that violates our fundamental rights but they are two very different varieties.
 
I'd rather be taxed than see them removed from sale.


or how about neither. it's not like it has to be a binary choice between oppression and less oppression.

I would rather have my legs chopped off than have my arms chopped off but neither is really acceptable. when we reach a point as a society when the choice is always the lesser of two evils something is wrong and it's time to start demanding better options altogether.
 
Can we tax something else that I don't use like guns? I mean, it is the guns killing people not the games.

In case you didn't know, firearms & ammunition are already taxed at 11%, which is a higher rate than this proposed tax on video games. This money is earmarked towards wildlife conservation efforts; these taxes plus hunting/fishing licenses provide the large majority of funding for state wildlife programs. So next time you visit a state park thank hunters and gun owners for funding them. Here is an interesting article from the Sierra Club about it. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/pittman-robertson-wildlife-conservation-fund
 
Why not push legislation that forces retailers to check ID and verify the age of the buyer of said ESRB rated games...no different than carding someone for tobacco or alcohol purchases?

Adding a tax doesn't solve the "problem", imo.

Pretty sure that is already law, at least in CA. Or maybe it is store policy at Gamestop/Best Buy/Frys and pretty much every other retailer. I got flagged for an ID many years ago.

I see that no one else in this thread (may have missed it, but....) pointed this little jewel out, according to the article, a Republican introduced this bill.

And recall the Democrat who tried to outright ban them in CA. As it happened back then, this bill will go nowhere. But at least this Republican doesn't deal with weapon trafficking to terrorists unlike said Democrat. :p

Neither party or even the average person is very friendly in regards to video games.
 
Pretty sure that is already law, at least in CA. Or maybe it is store policy at Gamestop/Best Buy/Frys and pretty much every other retailer. I got flagged for an ID many years ago.

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!
 
Seriously though, we never have found the key to stopping violence (that doesn't involve solitary confinement for everyone). This is little more than a cash grab using emotions and hurt people to help sail this through legislation. Taking more money from people has never lessened their violent natures.
 
Pretty sure that is already law, at least in CA. Or maybe it is store policy at Gamestop/Best Buy/Frys and pretty much every other retailer. I got flagged for an ID many years ago.



And recall the Democrat who tried to outright ban them in CA. As it happened back then, this bill will go nowhere. But at least this Republican doesn't deal with weapon trafficking to terrorists unlike said Democrat. :p

Neither party or even the average person is very friendly in regards to video games.
Store policy is not law. I needed to show ID to buy Counter-Strike: Condition Zero at Target 15 years ago. It was the first and only time that happened.
 
Yeah, I agree that meds don’t address the main issue.

Actually there is a growing mountain of evidence that meds ARE the main issue of these mass shootings. Mass shootings weren't a thing until they started being widely used.
 
This is really a good point, and I wish people would really think about this more. I've realized what the real issue is here - stupid people don't know how to guide, channel, or lead, only suppress.

Or you have smart people who never let a good crisis go to waste.

It's pretty obvious guns aren't the root issue here. However guns are inconvenient for people who want to lord over every aspect of your life, so you must eliminate them at all costs.

Just like "health care" with Obama care. Health insurance with deductibles so high that most people who need it can't afford to ever use it is NOT "health care", no matter how you name the "Affordable Care Act". If they really wanted to address "health care" there were four very simple things that could have been done:

  1. Tort reform (looser pays being the largest)
  2. Force/allow insurance across state lines so larger pools could be established
  3. Allow for non-profit health care collectives similar to credit unions or my non-profit electrical cooperative that I get my power from
  4. Allow everyone to have Health Savings Accounts where pre-tax money can be deposited and accrue year over year and remain tax free as long as it's spent on healthcare.
Number 1 is no good for the lawyers (what is just about everyone in congress??)
I dunno what's going on with number 2 except for maybe lobbying by the current insurance companies
Same for number 3 - the incumbents probably hate it
And a big portion of hate for number 4 from the entrenched players too

Think I'm overstating 3 and 4? Look at the stock prices of insurance companies post Obama-care. Over 1000% gains. CVS buys out an insurance company. Others are merging.

This is about money and power. Same things it always is. Guns is 100% about power - dems want it over you and they can't get it if everyone is armed. Obama-care was about money - specifically funneling it into their buddies coffers. And Republicans are the same - just lift up the covers and start paying attention to what's really going on. That's the biggest problem. The vast majority of Americans take America and our system for granted.

Also if you go around fixing things, what the hell do you need politicians for?!? That's the biggest thing that scares the crap out of establishment Democrats AND Republicans - Trump is showing them that a lot of this stuff isn't that hard; just do it. How many Democrat and Republican presidents paid lip service to moving our embassy in Israel? Trump did it. And the world didn't come to an end. Huh - fancy that!

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing :hungover:
 
Actually there is a growing mountain of evidence that meds ARE the main issue of these mass shootings. Mass shootings weren't a thing until they started being widely used.
To blame drugs for people shooting everyone up is also silly. “Side effects may include mass homicidal tendencies...”
 
Wrong! It's the person that kills. The gun is inanimate.

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.)
 
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.)

No.
 
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.)

So your solution is to give insurance companies more money? What controls the rates? Mass shootings make my insurance go up? Someone steals my gun and commits a crime, however rare the scenario is, is the crime not the person who committed it not who bought the gun?

That should place across everything then, I steal your car and run someone over, you are liable as well. Should have secured your car better.

Also I agree, video games are not realistic shooters, never have been. I played shooters for a good 20 years before I got to fire my first gun. Nothing I did with a keyboard and mouse in call of duty was of any use to me at the range the first time.
 
Four members of Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives are supporting a 10% tax on mature-rated video games: House Bill 2705 proposes a tax that is “imposed on each separate sale at retail of video games which have an adults-only rating or mature rating according to the rating system established by the [ESRB].” ........................


Hmmm, what could go wrong?

The ESRB is not a legal requirement.

Are all games and apps required to have a rating?

The rating system is voluntary, although virtually all video games that are sold at retail or downloaded to a game system in the U.S. and Canada are rated by the ESRB.

If States like Pennsylvania start doing this kind of shit all that's going to happen is the industry will kick back and stop playing along and we'll have no rating system at all.
 
Can we tax something else that I don't use like guns? I mean, it is the guns killing people not the games.

I told people, I warned them, people didn't see any big issue with using taxation to force people to quit smoking. "Wait till they tax something that does effect you and see how you feel about it then" I said.

Taxation has a purpose within the construct of the US Government and it shouldn't be used to change people's behavior, to punish, a tool for change, or any other bullshit like that. It's wrong at a fundamental level. Need to nip that socialistic bullshit right in the bud..... the rose bud.
 
So your solution is to give insurance companies more money? What controls the rates? Mass shootings make my insurance go up? Someone steals my gun and commits a crime, however rare the scenario is, is the crime not the person who committed it not who bought the gun?

That should place across everything then, I steal your car and run someone over, you are liable as well. Should have secured your car better.

Also I agree, video games are not realistic shooters, never have been. I played shooters for a good 20 years before I got to fire my first gun. Nothing I did with a keyboard and mouse in call of duty was of any use to me at the range the first time.

If someone steals your car and it is outside of a time window and kills someone with your car by accident or purpose then yea you're liable because at that point you loaned them the car and your insurance is on the line. That's how it is today. Not that you will do jail time but you get the idea.

Guns are designed to kill. Period end of story. If someone uses your gun to kill someone because you didn't properly secure it (easily prove able) and didn't report it missing in time (if was outside of the allotted time frames.) Then yea you're liable.

And insurance will do all it can to limit that liability for you making ti less expensive for them as well.
 
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.)
Wow just wow.
 
Can we tax something else that I don't use like guns? I mean, it is the guns killing people not the games.
IMO, they are already taxed too much as it is. Rights shouldn't be taxed, which is why poll taxes were outlawed. It's the same reason you aren't taxed for free speech or a govt. appointed attorney. If you place an artificial financial barrier in front of a right, then you restrict that right - which means it's not really a right any more. They should tax video games before rights, not that I think approving taxes on video games is a good idea either, but in order of hierarchy...
 
If someone steals your car and it is outside of a time window and kills someone with your car by accident or purpose then yea you're liable because at that point you loaned them the car and your insurance is on the line. That's how it is today. Not that you will do jail time but you get the idea.

Guns are designed to kill. Period end of story. If someone uses your gun to kill someone because you didn't properly secure it (easily prove able) and didn't report it missing in time (if was outside of the allotted time frames.) Then yea you're liable.

And insurance will do all it can to limit that liability for you making ti less expensive for them as well.

You have a case where that happened? Someone stole a car and then the owner was held responsible?

No, insurance will just profit off of it. They aren't there for you, they exist for themselves and they were able to get legislation to require them (great business solution). I looked up the leading causes of death in the US (2016 data), tell me which ones taxes and insurance are solving?

  • Heart disease: 635,260
  • Cancer: 598,038
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 161,374
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 154,596
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 142,142
  • Alzheimer’s disease: 116,103
  • Diabetes: 80,058
  • Influenza and pneumonia: 51,537
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,046
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,965
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2017/019.pdf

I get it, you hate guns and are scared of them. Fine, stay away from them. But don't try and legislate what you have no clue about. Personally I think your right to free speech should be removed because it could lead to violence. See how that works?

I prefer to carry around protection, no one else is responsible for my safety only myself. Legislate an insurance and sometimes guns fall into a lake, very sad.
 
You have a case where that happened? Someone stole a car and then the owner was held responsible?

No, insurance will just profit off of it. They aren't there for you, they exist for themselves and they were able to get legislation to require them (great business solution). I looked up the leading causes of death in the US (2016 data), tell me which ones taxes and insurance are solving?

  • Heart disease: 635,260
  • Cancer: 598,038
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 161,374
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 154,596
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 142,142
  • Alzheimer’s disease: 116,103
  • Diabetes: 80,058
  • Influenza and pneumonia: 51,537
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,046
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,965
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2017/019.pdf

I get it, you hate guns and are scared of them. Fine, stay away from them. But don't try and legislate what you have no clue about. Personally I think your right to free speech should be removed because it could lead to violence. See how that works?

I prefer to carry around protection, no one else is responsible for my safety only myself. Legislate an insurance and sometimes guns fall into a lake, very sad.

Right but when you perceive a threat against someone and deploy your self protection. And kill multiple individuals where you went because you felt threatened by them. That was a preventable series of deaths because you lost your mind.

Now... the only reason you carry a hand gun is to protect yourself. What if your gun couldn't be fired by anyone but you. It has to be armed with something like a fingerprint sensor on your phone. Now risk of someone else grabbing your weapon and deploying it without your permission or will to do harm is all but eliminated except in more outlandish examples. It prevents death. It also is an additional step before you can start firing it as well that takes little time but maybe causes a quarter of a second more consideration to the need to actually kill whomever you're drawing down on.

In some rare case that less than a quarter of a second MAY pose heightened risk. Fine we account for that by having exceptions to laws for specific roles or needs with additional vetting to try and limit the chances of their firearms being used without their consent by a unstable person.

This leads to a reduction in deaths by handguns altogether. I fail to see the problem with this.


Back to video games which this thread is about... in connection to mass shootings. I think today it is LESS likely to be an issue.
 
Right but when you perceive a threat against someone and deploy your self protection. And kill multiple individuals where you went because you felt threatened by them. That was a preventable series of deaths because you lost your mind.

Now... the only reason you carry a hand gun is to protect yourself. What if your gun couldn't be fired by anyone but you. It has to be armed with something like a fingerprint sensor on your phone. Now risk of someone else grabbing your weapon and deploying it without your permission or will to do harm is all but eliminated except in more outlandish examples. It prevents death. It also is an additional step before you can start firing it as well that takes little time but maybe causes a quarter of a second more consideration to the need to actually kill whomever you're drawing down on.

In some rare case that less than a quarter of a second MAY pose heightened risk. Fine we account for that by having exceptions to laws for specific roles or needs with additional vetting to try and limit the chances of their firearms being used without their consent by a unstable person.

This leads to a reduction in deaths by handguns altogether. I fail to see the problem with this.


Back to video games which this thread is about... in connection to mass shootings. I think today it is LESS likely to be an issue.


Because complex mechanisms like that have a nasty habit of failing when you need it most..... And if you don't think that's the case, you haven't worked in mechanical/electrical engineering. This problem is not as simple as 'lets just add a fingerprint sensor to the gun, problem solved'.

I'm all for better policies that prevent say people with mental problems from purchasing firearms, but taxes and bans are bullshit and proven to do almost nothing.
 
I'm amazed; only two noobs took issue with my comment, and both were incoherent.

The gun lobby is going downhill.

:)

Full disclosure: I have lots of guns, always have.

The level of argument is distressing, tho. :(

I see why video games are getting easier; gotta stay with the crowd and keep them happy. :)
I forget some people thought auto-aim was an improvement. :facepalm:
 
Right but when you perceive a threat against someone and deploy your self protection. And kill multiple individuals where you went because you felt threatened by them. That was a preventable series of deaths because you lost your mind.

Now... the only reason you carry a hand gun is to protect yourself. What if your gun couldn't be fired by anyone but you. It has to be armed with something like a fingerprint sensor on your phone. Now risk of someone else grabbing your weapon and deploying it without your permission or will to do harm is all but eliminated except in more outlandish examples. It prevents death. It also is an additional step before you can start firing it as well that takes little time but maybe causes a quarter of a second more consideration to the need to actually kill whomever you're drawing down on.

In some rare case that less than a quarter of a second MAY pose heightened risk. Fine we account for that by having exceptions to laws for specific roles or needs with additional vetting to try and limit the chances of their firearms being used without their consent by a unstable person.

This leads to a reduction in deaths by handguns altogether. I fail to see the problem with this.


Back to video games which this thread is about... in connection to mass shootings. I think today it is LESS likely to be an issue.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

You have a 5x greater chance poisoning yourself than being killed by a gun, 10x if you remove the black on black gang crimes from the murder statistic.

Do you worry about dying from poison?
 
Right but when you perceive a threat against someone and deploy your self protection. And kill multiple individuals where you went because you felt threatened by them. That was a preventable series of deaths because you lost your mind.

Now... the only reason you carry a hand gun is to protect yourself. What if your gun couldn't be fired by anyone but you. It has to be armed with something like a fingerprint sensor on your phone. Now risk of someone else grabbing your weapon and deploying it without your permission or will to do harm is all but eliminated except in more outlandish examples. It prevents death. It also is an additional step before you can start firing it as well that takes little time but maybe causes a quarter of a second more consideration to the need to actually kill whomever you're drawing down on.

For the same reason defibrillators and air bags dont use windows for an OS, reliability in life endangering situations. My phone which has a fast processor sometimes needs me to reposition my thumb or i am too sweaty from a workout and it won't work at all and i have to input my password. My guns have misfired or failed far less times than any electronic device I have owned. They can fail too don't get me wrong, but adding additional points of failure is not worth it.

My holster is safe enough for me that you won't just get it unless you are bumping on my ass close to me from behind in which case either i can elbow you, or I'm already dead and it won't matter.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top