What Other Types of Guns Can Sen. Feinstein Fail to Ban? What About Ones Made of Pixels?

Scott Shackford|April 5, 2013 11:34 am

Having all but failed in her ill-considered, poorly argued efforts to ban assault weapons (the usual caveat: whatever “assault weapons” are), now California Sen. Dianne Feinstein seems ready to fail and fail harder going after violent video games.

At a speech in San Francisco on Wednesday, she took her typical aim against the National Rifle Association. But then she all but joined the NRA in complaining about the glorification of violence in video games. Via the Associated Press:

Feinstein also encouraged the entertainment and video game industries to take voluntary steps to produce products that do not glorify big, powerful guns before Congress feels compelled to step in. She mentioned that Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old man responsible for the Sandy Hook Elementary School slayings, practiced shooting both at a range with his mother and on a video screen.

Video games play "a very negative role for young people, and the industry ought to take note of that," she said. "If Sandy Hook doesn't do it, if the knowledge of these video games this young man played doesn't, then maybe we have to proceed, but that is in the future."

Well, we can all look forward to that future failure as well. One: Just as with movies, the video game industry has a voluntary ratings system that thoroughly documents a game’s contents and recommends appropriate ages. Two: The Supreme Court has ruled that the contents of video games are constitutionally protected free speech in a case that originated from Feinstein’s own state.

The idea of video games playing “a very negative role for young people” is just unsupported nonsense without foundation. Yesterday, when I wrote about film critic’s Roger Ebert’s awkward relationship with the creative culture of video games, I noted the gap between Baby Boomers and the younger generations over the role of the medium in their lives. The industry took Ebert’s dismissal of video games as a potential art form as a challenge.

Feinstein’s poorly chosen words and vague threat will likely not inspire much introspection. She doesn’t understand the medium at all and clearly has no interest in understanding the medium. But unlike Ebert, Feinstein has the power to shape government policy, or at least try to, anyway. It would be interesting to see how the heavily California-based video game industry would respond to Feinstein actually trying to go after them.

---

Good luck with virtual gun control when real gun control is DOA. Nothing like politicians trying to ban shit they don't understand.

Nah, what they need is a new senator.

She's only 80. That's like 35 in Senator years.

Adam Lanza was probably an avid gamer because he was fixated on guns.

People with Asperger's often have limited social skills and have trouble empathizing with others (seeing their point of view). Like with Autism, they become highly interested and focused on one subject, depending on the severity and where exactly they fall in the spectrum. Lanza had an NRA certificate, would get birthday checks with memo's suggesting the purchase of [such and such] rifle. He was proficient with weapons and his mother kept them around the house. lots of them. Video games likely provided a safe alternative to actually firing a weapon, but with his inability to see the perspectives of others, its likely it felt like one of his games to him. It is entirely possible that he was unable to tell if others could even feel pain, but this was due to his own mental faculties rather than any sort of "negative role" provided by games.

Video games are used to help war vets with PTSD, actually providing a safe release for their fears and flashbacks. His mental state, coupled with his proficiency of weapons, lack of the ability to feel empathy and who knows what else in his life (paranoia, abuse etc) is what led to the shooting. Not anything to do with games, and not any one of the factors listed above. Why must Congress spout vitriol of something they know nothing about?

I have been playing games for as long as I can remember. The NES came out 2 years before I was born and they have been with me literally my whole life. I played Turok when I was 9 and Turok 2 when it came out, Duke Nukem 64, Doom 64....and many more that I don't even recall because it has been so long. I am not a violence crazed maniac, or take joy in the pain of others. I have only shot a gun twice in my life, and while I feel it could be enjoyable to practice my accuracy...it is only out of curiosity in relation to my gaming style (tend to be a sniper ) I know that game skills don't translate, but that is beside the point. I tend to take pride in my accuracy in all things, whether it's darts, pool, gaming, basketball, tennis (placing the shot), general spatial reasoning and so on.

I also have a degree in Psychology with an emphasis on behavior...so it's not like I'm just blowing hot air like Congress. The study that they are getting funding for will (likely) come up with the same conclusion as every other study has. Violent video games do not lead to violent behavior, especially in relation to using firearms to harm others. A study like this should be completed over many years to see the long term effects, but there is no doubt in my mind that Congress will just want the study to be as quick and dirty as possible.

I did a study like this in my undergrad, they placed an EEG on my head and had me play Hitman. Then they had me rate images as violent or non violent, and then there was a test of hearing. A "second subject" had performed the study at the same time and I was "competing" with him/her in the last exercise. Whoever pressed the button first after a signal got to send a tone to the other of differing volumes. It was to see if the game, the imagery and the tone had any correlation. Would I send a loud tone simply because they did? Or did I base my input on simply how I was feeling (give me a quiet one, I go loud anyway or vice versa). Of course there wasn't another subject....but yeah.

I apologize for the insanely long post that should probably be made a blog post somewhere. Congrats if you read it though. This issue really gets to me and Congress needs to wake up and realize the world is changing. Before games it was radio shows,movies, music, comic books, novels and so on. Violent crimes have actually DROPPED since things like Doom were released. Food for thought...

Stats. Kind of old, but still relevant: http://videogames.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003627

Maybe she figures she'll have better luck there.

While there is a consitutional right to guns, there isn't one to virtual guns!

I mean, outside Freedom of Speech but I'm sure they could try and argue that virtual guns are like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. (and sadly succeed somehow.]

Yeah, that occurred to me as well. But the thing that everyone who cites the shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater argument should remember - especially those on the left, since they seem to cite it far more often than anyone else (because, despite having the gall to call themselves liberals, they always seem to be the ones who want to dictate people's behavior) - is that (a) the asshole who coined the phrase to begin with did so in the context of keeping socialists from being able to hand out anti-war leaflets (you know... anti-war? that thing they all pretend to be whenever a Republican is in the White House?), and (b) that awful ruling was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

I think the main thing is that unlike real guns and unlike prop guns in Hollywood, virtual guns don't have a lobby.

People like her were elected to uphold the constitution and swore to do so, but they seem to hate it.

If by "people like her" you mean "Congresspeople from California", I think the Constitution was probably the last thing on her constituents' minds when they inflicted her on the rest of us.

Yeah, where that phrase comes from is pretty hilarious all things considered.   Well hilarious in the dark humor type way anyway.

Oliver Wendell Holmes is an intresting guy... he had a brilliant insight on the consitution and when peoples rights should end... and he has a history of not following his words at all.  Leading to some of the biggest civil rights disasters supported by the Supreme Court.

Buck V Bell probably being the worst.

They really just need to enact sensible gun control. Even if the nuts have to have their unnecessary assault weapons, no-one should protest universal background checks and the closing of the gun-show loophole.