UK To Mull High Video Game Taxes — To Fight Knife Crime 615
chareverie writes "The Prime Minister of the UK is being urged to impose high taxes on violent video games in an effort to reduce the number of knife-related crime. The request comes from Richard Taylor, who argues that young people 'feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like.' He doesn't have a definitive number on how much to tax on the offensive video games, but says that they should be 'very high.' Rap music is also voiced to be a concern due to the alleged negativity and language. Taylor's son, Damilola Taylor, was killed in November 2000 at the age of 10 by knife stabbing."
Separation of problem and solution (Score:5, Interesting)
The youth of Britain apparently feel that the law has no control over them (something I agree is probably the case).
So you solve that by... raising taxes? It doesn't even matter on what, it might as well be rutabagas for the good it does you in terms of solving the problem. How is making video games that thugs want more expensive so they have to knife four more people to get the funds really going to help?
Instead, how about imposing some more forceful law over those that feel the law is irrelevant to their actions? When actions start having real consequences, people can and will change.
Yay Britain (Score:1, Interesting)
Gotta love the British who enact law simply because one person has a tragedy that might have been averted.
They pulled this a few years ago with violent porn, where some woman was raped and killed, and the cops found some violent porn in his house, and proceeded to outlawing the porn, to prevent the porn from causing the feelings of rape in the guy, or something like that. Makes no sense to me.
Some also want knives banned (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people in the UK are also calling for the ban of any pointed chef's knives [bbc.co.uk]. These people claim that there's no possible reason for a knife to have a point to it except to stab people. Now, I'm not a chef, but I've done my share of cooking. I will often use the pointed tip of my knife to "stab" a food item if the food (like, say tomatoes) resists my initial slice attempts (e.g. looks like it's going to squish instead of slice cleanly). What's next? Ban scissors? Box cutters (not just from planes but any possession of)? Swiss Army Knives?
Not only is this dumb its backwards. (Score:1, Interesting)
The child abduction and violent crimes against kids are down.
Largely because of: a) more indoor playing from video games, b) increase in homework, c) increased amount of supervised time (school, extra-circular stuff, etc...).
Of those video games is a major factor. It is no-brainer to me that video games playing would reduce incidence of stabbing not increase it.
If that was really the goal, they should give kids a BBC xbox channel full of free quality games and issue rebate coupons to people to buy their kids consoles.
Re:Correlation... (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop institutionalizing and disenfranchising your youth. Stop encouraging your children to sterilize themselves. Wait a generation or two. Problem solved.
Oh, you want to actually enjoy life while you're young?
Exterminate the dependent elderly until they only represent a small portion of the population. Continue to sterilize yourselves so the dependent young never represent more than a small portion of the population.
Then you too can be totally self-centered and enjoy the Boomer Dream.
Better plan on committing suicide the moment you no longer are able to work, because there will be no care forthcoming from the next generation.
Bullying was the cause of Damilola's death (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullying is the real problem here which should be addressed.
Don't be fooled! (Score:1, Interesting)
The good news for us gamers is that the government is unlikely to risk upsetting the UK game development gravy train, as at the moment it's one of the few industries that's actually doing ok considering the current climate.
An easy way to combat street crime would be to put more uniformed plods on the street, but such a plainly obvious solution is beyond this government (and doesn't supply a source of easily abused funds).
Re:HUH? (Score:5, Interesting)
Revenue Streams? (Score:4, Interesting)
My head just exploded.
Re:Some also want knives banned (Score:4, Interesting)
Correct - a law against pointed knives would outlaw, for example, paring knives; making it difficult to peel certain fruits.
As per the linked article [bbc.co.uk] explicitly says "The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime." So the proposed legislation would not outlaw paring knives.
Besides, many knives are equally effective at causing harm using just the bladed edge (think butcher knives.)
No, they are not equally effective - the most effective type of knife to fight with is one which permits both slashing and piercing attacks. Weapons which only allow one or the other are obviously, provably less versatile.
The best argument against any litigation like this is always the same. At some point you have to accept that since any able human can kill any other able human with nothing more than a broken chopstick (you have to sleep sometime) banning things is never going to prevent murder. If you want to prevent murder, you have to change people.
The second best argument is always equally predictable: The utility of the item in question. Claims from "top chefs" to the contrary, there is no knife as useful as the Chef's Knife [wikipedia.org] (I have always called it a French knife, and since I don't eat "Freedom Fries" I probably will continue to do so.) The really relevant part of the above article is as follows:
Good kitchen knives are expensive and a single high-quality knife can easily run into the multiple hundreds of dollars. This one (large, pointed) knife does the job of many knives and furthermore, it makes many tasks easier than trying to perform them with almost any other tool. My lady is a professional chef who has worked in a broad variety of restaurants including a four star on Orcas island. We have a food processor and a blender with a mini food processor attachment in our kitchen and both of us regularly use a French knife. For example, if I want to dice a small quantity of fresh garlic, the food processor is essentially useless as it will only distribute partially-chopped garlic around the bowl of the processor. The most popular current alternative to this knife, the Santoku does not have enough curve to dice easily, a task at which the French knife excels. A garlic press crushes the garlic, even if it has a chopper on it. If you do not believe that this makes a difference, your taste buds are fired. Hire new ones.
In summary: A single large, pointed knife can perform almost every knife-related task in the kitchen - if you prefer high quality goods this can save you hundreds of dollars. Hand-picked top chefs who say that they don't need a large pointed knife clearly don't make sushi, cut up chickens, or dice their own garlic, let alone have the same economic concerns as the average "man in the street" - it's hard to see what it looks like in a normal kitchen from the top of an ivory tower.
They're taxing the wrong thing! (Score:3, Interesting)
Stabbings occur with knives! Not Video Games. It's the knives that they should be taxing!!!
Re:England prevails (Score:1, Interesting)
While death is death in the end, you have a much, much higher chance of surviving a knife attack than a gun attack. Knives are still potentially lethal weapons of course, but it's much, much harder for the average street thug to actually kill you with a knife than with a gun (trained special ops sneaking up behind you and slitting your throat are another matter of course).
But remember, if you're stabbed once and manage to run away, don't pull out the knife!. Doing that is the bit that often kills you
(blood loss, embolism or both).
Re:Correlation... (Score:2, Interesting)
To be exact, correlation implies one of 3 things :
- Causation
- Caused-by (passive)
- Shared-cause
So translated to, if criminals correlate to players of violent games this means one of 3 things :
1) Playing games causes crime
2) Crime causes playing game
3) Playing violent games and criminal behavior have the same cause
Right now they're "assuming" 1) is fact. Since 2 seems unlikely in the extreme, the other is 3, which means that if you try to buy a violent game, regardless of any other factor, it would be a good idea to arrest you, since you probably already are a criminal (instead of merely more prone to violent behavior)
Re:Correlation... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a complex problem. People like to pretend that it's a complex problem because they like to "bargain", they like to "negotiate" with reality. "I don't want to take this responsibility, but I want the outcome, so how about I just do lots of this other thing instead.", they say.
But it's all smoke, mirrors and bullshit. The problem is based on simple, fundamental principles, and the lack of attention that has been paid to them.
Re:Please correct my logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm. On the other hand, what about teaching kids that violence (shooting, knifing, whatever) is not the answer? [Violent] video games don't do that.
Yes, it decreases their free time, but not necessarily constructively. I can think of a lot of other activities. You may as well say that TV prevents crime or something, and that taxing TV usage would increase crime? But there's the question of whether or not TV does something to the mind that increases this or that behavior when not watching TV.
Same with video games. What behaviors are actually influenced by video game usage. What real habits are or can be formed virtually. What happens when they lose their job and don't have the money to play the video games anymore...
Re:HUH? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's just crazy sane type talk.
Re:Correlation... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Freedom's just another word for 'nothin left ta lose'"
People who have more to lose tend to take fewer risks and do fewer bad things. People with little to nothing to lose have fewer moral limits... generally. (Clearly, there are more sociopaths that are in charge of the country and most big businesses than not) So the "BEST" way to control the people and curb violence and all that stuff is to make sure they have something to lose! Let them be more prosperous and comfortable. Give them better TV shows and entertainment. Make sure they are employed and have a comfortable retirement.
Yes, I know there are people who simply don't want to work and will always lead broken lives and all that. It's not a perfect solution but no solution involving people will ever be perfect. But still, consideration of some solid generalities of the public at large would make plenty of sense. The people in charge need to adopt some wisdom over the limits of what should be "taken away" from the people. After all, the more you take away from people, the less they have to lose.
Re:HUH? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like with guns, the law-abiders need to bear the full brunt of the legislation. Register all knives! If you're an honest cook, you have nothing to hide. So register knives today! And wait ten days for the appoveal. For the Children!
Remember, you're not a politician, and don't know how to run your own life.
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes.. or are you trying to say the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the US?
While a lower violent crime rate in the UK is not an argument saying that outlawing guns lowers violent crime, I think it is a fairly strong argument that allowing everyone to own guns doesn't necessarily lower it either.
I think your idea shows a common misconception about violent crime. For example, a lot of violent crime occurs between gang members; the fact that the gang members they commit violence against also have weapons does not seem to deter them from committing the violence against each other. Secondly, most other forms of violent crime is not against strangers (check out http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ [usdoj.gov]), but against people who know each other (family especially)... you would be hard pressed to argue that this violence would be prevented if everyone owned weapons. The biggest argument against your reasoning, however, is your implied assumption that criminals use game theory to decide if it is rationally beneficial to commit their crime.. I think it is a stretch to suggest everyday law abiding people apply this sort of rationality to their actions, let alone violent criminals who clearly demonstrate they do not act rationally.
Re:HUH? (Score:1, Interesting)
I find your comment pretty absurd because it's the same line of logic used by nanny staters to justify increased taxes on all forms of vice (tobacco and booze come to mind) and other forms of behavior that they don't approve of. If the cost of Governmental charity is a veto over my freedom of choice regarding my own body then keep your charity -- I don't want it.
Taking your argument to the logical conclusion we should also tax flat-headed screwdrivers and crowbars because they are useful in breaking-and-entering. Let's tax gasoline even more because criminals sometimes use it to get away from the scene of the crime. Cellular phones might deserve an extra tax too -- I bet it's a lot easier to coordinate criminal activity with them than without them.
Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, the whole test for self-defence -- including the duty to retreat -- is whether the defendant acts 'reasonably'. The test of reasonableness is what would appear reasonable to 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. Do you think that people should be allowed to act unreasonably?
I am not aware of any cases where a defence of 'self-defence' has failed due to the defendant not retreating in their own home. Are you?
The defence only fails when the defendant acts unreasonably.
This is a ridiculous assertion. The career criminal attacks me, and I may have a defence of 'self-defence' even if I kill him, and even if I strike first; it will depend on whether or not I have acted reasonably. The criminal will have no defence at all.
Re:Correlation... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Correlation... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because you have the ability to procreate doesn't mean you HAVE to.
Seems like if you resent being a *slave*, the simplest way is just to NOT have kids ?
Having a baby is not like having a pet rock, of course it comes with responsibilities, and while the child is not grown up, who else is going to provide for it, if not the parents ?
Before I tell you to get off my lawn, here's my take on the problem.
In our day (I was born in 1968, and my formative years were the 70's and early 80's), we were taught certain things about right and wrong. If we fucked up too many times at home, a clip round the ear was usually enough to straighten us out. Likewise, we still had corporal punishment at school, and damn did that cane ever sting across the backside. One taste of that, and you usually didn't go back for another.
However, kids of the 90's grew up in a different atmosphere. They abolished corporal punishment, basically telling kids they could do what they wanted at school without fear of punishment, so no more "lessons" on good or bad at school.
Then they told kids they could SUE their parents if they hit them (WTF ???), so no more "lessions" on good or bad in the home. Parents became fearful of discipling their children, for risk of being accused of molestation or child abuse, and the kids (as they do), learnt all too quickly THIS "lesson".
That they could get away with bloody murder anywhere, anytime they wanted, and no one would say anything !
The government, in response to rising levels of juvenile delinquency, introduced ASBO (anti social behaviour orders), which became trophy items for kids to compare who had the most. Pseudo-psycologists told us that everything was due to "Asberger Tourette Humdrum Lemondrop Syndrome", and everyone lost sight of the simple truth that some kids are just bad little bastards who will push and buck the system as much as they can get away with it, and simply need a bit of discipline to get them back on track.
And now of course, those kid's of the 90's are PARENTS themselves, passing on absolutely no moral or social values to THEIR kids, because they are completely screwed up themselves.
Now who's to blame ? The Governent telling us how to be a "modern" parent properly 20 years ago, or us ourselves for not telling them to mind their own goddamn business ?
Either way, it's pretty much out of our hands now, so only the Government have any power left to do anything to fix things. They'll screw this up exactly as they screwed up 20 years ago of course, completely missing the point and getting things ass about face as always.
NOW, get off my lawn !