Author of failed games legislation says industry lacks credibility in violence debate
Yet another US legislator has spoken out against the games industry as driven by a "lust for money" and saying its customers were driven by a "lust for violence".
The politician is Leland Yee, California Senator and author of the games legislation famously struck down by the Supreme Court in Schwarzenegger Vs. EMA.
The country has entered into an intense dialogue surrounding the role video games and other violent media play in shootings such as those in Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado.
"Gamers have got to just quiet down," Yee told the San Francisco Chronicle.
"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."
Advertisement
The industry is facing pressure both from advocacy groups and politicians, as a bill from West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller calling for research into the effects of violent games on children has been reintroduced to Congress after expiring with the previous session in December.
President Obama has also asked for more research into the subject.
Vice President Joe Biden has met with industry leaders who with one exception endorsed further research.
Games were absent from his recommendations to the White House for reducing gun control.
..and I suppose the numerous studies that have already been done that disprove his self-interested political statements don't have any credibility either?
Aren't weapons another industry as powerful as the Gaming industry?
Why shall they be heard then?
It's so amazing that the US politics are willing to touch everything but the actual objects that cause the deaths...
You can't game, but you can buy as many guns as you want... :O!
What is it with California and authoritarian politicians?
Jurrabi: objects don't cause deaths, people do.
Jurrabi, we are also able to buy as much alcohol as we want. So why aren't you making comments about drunk drivers killing people? Why don't we ban alcohol and eliminate the DUI problem? Oh wait, we have already tried banning alcohol before. That didn't go over well -- crime rates soared. When we repealed it the crime rates went back down. So yeah, let's ban guns and eliminate the problem. Really are you that ignorant? The Second Amendment is what gives you a First, Third - Twenty-seventh Amendment. Don't forget that.
Let me educate you on something: more people are killed by automobiles than guns every year in the U.S.A. So why aren't more people wanting to ban Ford, Chevy, Honda, etc.?
Blaming one problem that has nothing to do with the issue is NOT how you solve the problem! The more you keep cutting leaves off a weed, the longer it stays around -- that is, until you cut the root, then you can expect that weed to die.
Studies have already shown there is no relation between games and violent behavior. When you have mentally ill retards running around freely you are just asking for things of this nature to occur. So until someone cuts out the root (i.e., locks up these mentally ill idiots forever) you can expect that weed to stay there (i.e., they will continue killing people).
Something else you may want to think about: if someone's objective is to kill a lot of people, a gun wouldn't be their first choice, a bomb would be. You can make them easily from household products and a neat little search engine called Google.
The NRA is not to blame for someone idiot going on a shooting rampage. If anything, a law-follower with a gun would've stopped people like that guy in Connecticut. Blaming the NRA for this is like blaming Ford Motor Company every time some idiot decides to have 10 beers and drive immediately afterwards and kills someone.
