>>4Or Random, depending on how it goes. If people treat it like a game where you tell a story of your childhood/ when you were a kid (i.e.: "when I was a kid...") then it would indeed go on Random (since the personal board is for "For people seeking personal help, life advice, or counseling.", which that would be more random storytelling)
If people contrast what's different from the past to today, and how things have changed, then it could be labeled as a piece of discussion, and therefore, on Main.
Actually on topic:
When I was a kid and videogames where more of a small share of the market, where it didn't get much attention. Sure, handhelds were the next new big thing, but it still got less overall attention then it does today. Hell, back then you could make a game about raping women and-
oh wait.
>Custer's Revenge
Now, however, parents and other citizens are going on and on about how "video games make our kids violent!" and are 'corrupting the youth', so to speak. I think I remember a few years ago there was a proposed legislation to put restrictions on gaming, but I believe it was shot down by people less worried about whether someone was playing a violent video game when the television right next to him was just as likely to be playing some sort of equally violent film or show.
Of course, shortly after there were experiments on whether or not these games actually had any affect on violence in youth (ironically, it actually calmed most people, although you have to wonder in the experiment if they were playing something akin Mario, or some pvp against that little kid who spams in all chat "GG NOOBS YOU SUCK SO MUCH XDDDDDDD")
On the topic of
>>2:
I'd tend to agree that putting restrictions on guns will do little to nothing, considering some murders get them illegally anyways. I think the purpose of such legislation would be to keep guns away/ less available (the key word there is less) to those who would use them for the wrong purposes. The problem is, however, that we don't know if a killer would've gone through and gotten the guns illegally if they weren't as easily available.
Those who are solid in their reasons to kill probably won't hesitate, but those who are thinking about murder might not be as inclined if they don't have guns easily available. This is probably an idea pulled from 'if he didn't have those guns in his mom's closet, would he have gone on a killing spree at the school?'
Still, anyone who is determined on murder is going to get guns either way, and it's those kind of people who commit the mass murders/ sprees, rather than the 'I'm going to kill my spouse for money' kind.
If it were passed, however, it seems like it would hurt those who would want to defend themselves more than those who want to commit murder.
...
This really is a TL;DR.
Reasoning for thread placement on top, issues in wall of text.
