72% of US Adults Support Violent-Game Ban For Minors 478
SpuriousLogic writes with an excerpt from GameSpot: "The US Supreme Court won't start hearing arguments over California's law banning game sales to minors until November 2. However, the ruling in the court of popular opinion is already in, according to a new poll. This week, parent watchdog group Common Sense Media released the results of a survey it commissioned on children's access to violent games. Conducted by polling firm Zogby International, the survey asked 2,100 adults whether they would support a law that 'prohibits minors from purchasing ultra-violent or sexually violent video games without parental consent.' Of those surveyed, some 72 percent said they would approve such a law. Common Sense Media CEO and founder James Steyer, whose nonprofit organization is lobbying for game-restriction legislation in many states, hailed the poll's findings. 'We hope the [state] attorneys general will take a look at these poll results and that they'll side with families over protecting the profits of the video game industry.'"
Do they not already have restrictions? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Brilliant question... Why do you need a law? You don't need the government to play nanny for your kids- you, as a parent, should be responsible for their upbringing and making bans won't do a single thing to keep the ones that're going to get it from getting access to violent games.
Much like minors getting ahold of alcohol or cigarettes. Yes, we need to largely prevent their access to those things- but without parental guidance and oversight, they'll still get the stuff anyhow.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - while I don't have a problem with restricting access, I have a fundamental problem with this law unfairly targeting video games and not all media. In mass killings, the top influences were movies and music, not video games (movies were something like 2x more influential than video games, as well). In secret shopper surveys [ftc.gov], kids were more than twice as likely to be able to buy R and UR movies and explicit lyric CDs.
The movie ratings system is voluntary just like
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a difference between store policy and the law. Despite what I've been told by numerous cashiers, there are (AFAIK) no laws against selling to minors:
-M-rated video games
-CDs with the Parental Advisory sticker
-tickets to R-rated movies
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (Score:4, Funny)
Probably the bartender knows how to read a persons age while the borderline aspergers kid at the game shop has to check ID.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As skeptical as I am about "industry self regulation," this is an instance where it appears to work fine. People who are concerned about availability of violent games (to minors) should be lobbying the retailers, not the government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nonsense. It's easier to lobby a single entity than to lobby ~100,000 different stores. And before you go off about "my right to buy a violent game or porn video", I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights. They are wards of their parents who make the decision of what to buy or not buy.
Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (Score:5, Insightful)
So shouldn't their parents be involved and know what their children are buying rather than depending on the government to babysit and do the parenting for them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry but non-adults don't have rights.
Well that's a shitty view to take of things. I thought all men were created equal and were endowed by their creator (whatever that is) with certain unalienable rights. I didn't think all men were created equal and were endowed by their society with certain unalienable rights once they reached a certain age.
I know when I was 16 that if someone had tried to suppress my rights to speak my mind, defend myself, or reserve my privacy both of my parents would have been up in arms about it. Then again, my paren
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are indeed no laws, but game retailers have been sensible enough to know that any government regulation in this area is just going to make life more difficult(see Australia, the lack of an R rating and what that does to games everywhere). Therefor the ESRB was created and, at least when I was a kid, it was fairly difficult to buy M rated games as a minor.
Unless retailers have gotten slack again and stopped enforcing their own rules, there's really no need to implement a law. If they have, it might be.
Re: (Score:2)
I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas
Texans seem to take age limits very seriously. I was often in Austin on business trips. On one, I bought a pack of cigarettes at a gas station for my GF, who tagged along on the trip. I was over 30 at the time, and the attendant asked me for ID. While I was a bit confused, I asked him if I didn't look old enough. He said that he was required to ask anyone, who looks younger that 26 for an ID, and that failure to do so would lose him his job. I laughed and told him that I lived in central Europe, and w
Re: (Score:2)
I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas
Out of pure curiosity, do you need to show an ID to rent or buy a movie like... hmm... Something equivalent to left4dead or somesuch. Zombieland, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I have had to show an ID to get M rated games from stores here in Texas, does California not already do that?
The video game industry has imposed its own regulations in an attempt to avoid government-imposed regulations.
The ESRB sets ratings. Individual stores have their own policies on what rating they'll carry, and who they'll sell to. But none of it is actual law. You might get fired for selling an AO title to a minor, but you wouldn't get arrested (unless the rating was earned because of sexual content and you were charged with providing pornography to a minor).
Frankly, this seems a little silly to me. We a
Just store policy (Score:3, Insightful)
Stores don't want to get sued, and they don't want more government regulation (because that is always more of a headache than it needs to be). So stores self police. Target is extremely strict, as far as I can tell they card everyone. I'm 30 and they card me when I go to buy an M rated game there.
For that matter the ratings themselves are all voluntary. The ESRB is a non-profit group setup by the video games industry, it isn't mandated and indeed indy titles sometimes don't submit for rating (though it is h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Minors are prohibited by federal law from purchasing or possessing guns, so not sure how you read it that way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Minors are prohibited by federal law from purchasing or possessing guns, so not sure how you read it that way.
Purchasing, yes (Federal), possessing, no. Some States do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically made it illegal for minors to possess firearms.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html [cornell.edu]
[(v) , (w) Repealed. Pub. L. 103–322, title XI, 110105(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2000.]
(x)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As so many have noted, that law applies to handguns only. In rural states where hunting is popular almost all kids in the country own their own guns. Hell I owned a gun (20ga shotgun) at 8 years old. My parents bought it for me to hunt with. Perfectly legal in South Carolina.
There are a lot of exceptions. For instance a "straw purchase" (purchasing a gun for another person) is illegal, but there are exceptions made for buying a firearm as a gift. I can't take $500 from the guy standing outside to go i
Not a gun owner, apparantly (Score:3, Informative)
By federal law you must be 18 to own a long gun (shotgun or rifle or the like) and 21 to own a pistol. One of the very few areas, alcohol being the only other one I can think of, that being an adult isn't enough to purchase something. When you purchase, gun stores don't just check ID, they do a full background check. They take your ID and take down a good amount of additional information. Technically, you don't have to provide it, but if there isn't enough to uniquely identify you, you wont' pass the check.
Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Something is out of whack here
What, that at one moment you are not allowed to buy a game where people are mowed down with machine guns but the very next moment you're allowed to sign up to do that in real life? Happy 18th birthday, young man.
Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (Score:4, Informative)
To buy a gun you need 2 forms of ID
Not federally, that is a state restriction.
in some states you need to go before the police, and get them to do a background check which can involve interviews with neighbors, friends and family and Police to determine you have a NEED to get a gun. After all that, you still might have a waiting period (even if you own guns already) and still get all the fun at gun store.
I'm not sure where you got the "interview neighbors" bit, maybe communist New York? I've never heard of even them doing that.
Re:Do they not already have restrictions? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is completely and utter bullshit. There have been a FEW, counted on one hand, cases of dealers selling firearms illegally. Most of the cases that were brought up in "studies" were thrown out do to illegal tactics used by the ATF. Mayor Bloomberg in New York was also breaking the law with his cronies going over state lines to try and illegally purchase firearms. He said they were able to purchase guns at 3 neighboring states. The only problem was, they had to break the law to do so. They provided false information to the dealer. The FBI and ATF both told him to cease operation of these "stings" or he would go to prison.
Buying a firearm at a gun show is no different than buying one at a store. You have to fill out the same paperwork and go through the same background check.
Why people distrust pollsters (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why a lot of people distrusts pollsters. How people answer is dependent on how the question is written. The question that Zogby sent out here was whether people supported laws that "prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent." Of course they're going to say they support the law - Zogby purposefully loaded the question against the opposing option! Do you think a lot of people are going to say that they support something that was just described to them as "ultraviolent" and "sexually violent"?
Imagine if Zogby asked a different question bent towards the other direction to the same 2000 people it polled for the first question - for example: "Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.
Re:Why people distrust pollsters (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just shocked that a whole 28% of those polled saw thru the loaded question.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again.
Re:Why people distrust pollsters (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. The only people who should be able to ban violent video games for minors are parents.
Re:Why people distrust pollsters (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would I change my mind for this when I consider myself a libertarian? I think the harm these games can do to the children is irreparable -- not that it happens in every case. I'm old enough now to see how different my kids behave when compared with other kids who were reared on lots of sugar and violent TV / games. Some of the other kids frankly scare me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...allows a minor who really wants an adult product...
Ahhh... but you are not thinking like a libertarian. The libertarian asks this question: "Who decides what is an adult product, and what is not?" And therein lies the problem with these kinds of laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like a 12 year old can walk into a liquor store and pick up a 5th of gin? I don't think so...
No one said this would remove all responsibility from a parent, and certainly current parents don't just assume their kids can't smoke, do drugs, etc. It will make it more difficult for them however, which achieves something that is better than no control at all.
Re:Why people distrust pollsters (Score:5, Informative)
How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again
Actually, this would be government forcing parents to be responsible for what their kids see. This is making it so that the kids can't buy this stuff without an adult (hopefully a parent). No one is saying kids can't own these games. They just want to make sure the parents are aware of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, the law gets passed because it's somewhat reasonable on it's face & basically the exact same system we have now, but with force of law behind it. How long would the loophole that you pointed out last before it got amended by one of the Christo-fascists currently in or soon to be in power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. When I was a kid, it was somewhat difficult to get things I "shouldn't" have without my parents finding out. It mostly involved enlisting the help of someone old enough to buy the cigarettes/beer/porn.
That is not the case today. Kids can easily get digital products from the comfort of their bedroom, with little chance of alerting mom & dad taht something suspicious is going on (no need to explain the new 22yo 'friend'). If the law requires you to be 18 to purchase explicit magazines, then why no
Re:Why people distrust pollsters (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the law should require you to be 18 to purchase explicit digital product as much as it does magazines, but only so long as we're talking the same definitions. The problem is that something like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is in the realm they want to declare explicit and illegal to sell to minors, while the same kind of content as a movie, TV show, comic book, novel, or even magazine (somehow) would not be "explicit" in a manner as to be categorized with the likes of Hustler as far as sale to minors.
There's no reason that laws making it illegal to sell certain categories of content to minors shouldn't be medium-agnostic. That isn't this however, this is a desire to make certain addition kinds of content also "explicit", but only when presented in the form of a video game.
This is literally the "Comic books/rock music/whatever are evil and somehow innately different than all other media" fight all over again but with the next type of media.
Why not go one step further? (Score:3, Interesting)
But who gets to classify 'ultraviolent' vs. 'violent' vs. 'comic violence'? If it's an industry body, then there's the same kinds of conflict of interest that leads to independent films getting 'worse' ratings than big studio releases. And the last thing we need is an Australia-style government run ratings board.
The obvious solution is to prevent children under 18 from buying any media at all. That way it's a content neutral restriction, and all the responsibility for what kids are playing, reading, or w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thats insane. Considering they asked the poll in the worst possible way and they would use any resulting legislation to ban absolutely everything right down to Final Fantasy style violence. I have to say, while I'm not a FF nut and don't play the MMO or anything, my late childhood experience would have been fairly different, and in my opinion worse, if it were not for FF and other games of its kind.
Re:Why people distrust pollsters (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.
I agree! What better way to make the parents responsible than to make the parents buy the game.
Re:Why people distrust pollsters (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.
It's not up to you to agree or disagree with it. That's the parent's right to make the decision and since she bought it for her kid knowing what was in it, it's now her responsibility. When her kid pulls his car over to kick prostitutes, she is going to have a hard time taking the game maker to court since she knowingly bought the game. It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you expect parents to exercise that responsibility if their kids have their own money from, say, paper routes or lawn mowing? Not let little Johnny out unattended until he's 18? Not let him do anything on the computer without being watched like a hawk until he's 18?
Re: (Score:2)
If little Johnny has video game consoles, use the age filters built into those systems. If he games on a Windows Vista/7 PC, use the same system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Little Johnny can warez the portable version of Postal 2 in about 2 hours if he was so inclined & had a broadband Internet connection. It ignores everything you just mentioned above.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpick much?
Postal 2 is pretty much the exact kind of game they are wanting to restrict with this law. You can replace it with Fallout 3 / Fallout: New Vegas & my point is still valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what about all those horrifically violent flash/soon-to-be-WebGL games around? OMGZ WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
War (legal ultraviolence) is a lot different from rape (illegal sexual violence). It's bad enough to combine separate questions (loaded enough), but the article doesn't even summarize the fundamental aspects of a statistical study!
There's also the fact that 2,100 people is a very small number to base any sort of national (or even state) law and policy on. What are the survey demographics? What are the statistically significant differences of opinion based on group? What is the study's power to detect (a
Re: (Score:2)
War (legal ultraviolence)
War isn't ultraviolence.
For ultraviolence you need: ... ...
- A blood/corpse ratio of about 25l:1
- teabagging
- weapons larger than humanly possible to carry.
- Men with a musculature that would put Mr. Olimpia to shame.
- Women with breasts larger than humanly possible to carry.
- Zombies.
- A strip club.
-
Great, now I miss Duke Nukem.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, "popular" opinion cannot be obtained by polling 2100 of 300 million people. I'm sorry, but that's about 0.0007% of the populous. I can gather up 2100 people who would give different numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if you are polling at a church or retirement home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.
Are you crazy? The mere mention of "parent's should be responsible for preventing... " will unleash immense rage and screams of "It's impossible!" "I can't know eerything my kid does!" "Anarchy! Anarchy! The end is nigh! Repent!!!"
Ok, maybe a bit less extreme, but many will get defensive at the slightest mention of parent responsability.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The first few lines tell you everything you need to know about 'loaded questions' for a poll:
From TFA:
Of course the poll results returned what Common Sense Media wanted. They commissioned it. If the polling groups want return business, they aim to please the folks who pay their bills. This would have had more impact if it was an independent poll.
That said, I ac
Re: (Score:2)
hello! ever raised a child? it would be impossible for parents alone to control that. with children, it takes a village, etc etc. in today's world, the village includes activists and law makers.
My point was that if you change the loaded question to say the opposite, the same people would probably agree to that as well. Nothing you said invalidates my point.
Re:Why people distrust pollsters (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one don't believe that kids need to be insulated from much of anything. Maturity happens from experience, and understanding cannot occur without knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
It also includes things like content restriction settings and parental controls built into every gaming console.
You know...the restrictions and controls that parent groups bitched about wanting to include in gaming consoles.
Re: (Score:2)
with children, it takes a village, etc etc. in today's world, the village includes activists and law makers.
ya, before there used to be only one idiot per village... good times!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The other day... (Score:2)
Seems like there already are measures in place to keep minors from getting M rated games, so what is the issue here?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those measures are put in place mainly by retailers.
Like the MPAA, the ESRB encourages retailers to set aged based restrictions to games with more mature ratings. Their goal is to make sure that laws don't need to be passed, and retailers are being responsible in who they sell violent/sexual games to.
Unfortunately it is really hard for the ESRB to get retailers to play along. They have very little power over the industry other than to withhold a content rating, they have no ability to stop distributio
As long as the parents can be parents (Score:2)
Even the /. Headline gets it wrong (Score:3, Informative)
The trouble with these types of surveys is that the always ask a very specific question and then the media generalizes it. In this case, they asked about "ultraviolent or sexually violent" games and if those games should require parental consent to buy them.
The Slashdot headline broadens the games to simply "violent" and broadens the purchasing restriction to an outright "ban".
I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Slashdot headline is misleading because it's hard to fit the nuances into the number of characters allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but we shouldn't put headlines that say something that the poll doesn't just to fit in a space. Make the space larger, or leave a detail out, but don't change the story to fit the space.
I would have preferred:
"Majority support ultraviolent game restrictions"
That would have fit and is factually accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.
The only good reason to "ban" violent video games is because kids might play it. If kids can't buy the game without a parent, you take away that excuse to ban the game from the do-gooders.
Meanwhile... (Score:3, Funny)
Other polls show that more than 95% of US children are opposed to the ban. :P
Disingenuous. (Score:2)
What we really need is for this to be firmly
Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh, Americans really need to give up this law and order fantasy where they think they can modify people's behavior just by creating laws(attn pro-lifers and anti-drug crusaders, this means you)
Re:Hooray for wastes of the taxpayers money! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't 72 % a bit low? (Score:2)
How about "One in three wants children to have unsupervised access to ultra violence and sex!"
Wait, wait, (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is bigger (Score:2)
I'm not entirely certain that requiring parental consent will do much more than it is now. At present, most video game retailers require ID to purchase M-Rated games, but requiring parental consent does not equate to requiring INFORMED parental consent. Plenty of minors I know who have copies of violent video games got them from their parents as gifts. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of the parents who bought the games would reconsider if they sat down and actually played the game for 20 minutes. N
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the ratings can be misleading, like this fine example from the Windows 7 Game Center back when Win7 was in beta:
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j14/voyager529/UT3_Fail.png [photobucket.com]
Yes Congresman (Score:5, Insightful)
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm [yes-minister.com]
Yes (Prime) Minister
Watch it. Understand it. Remember it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh this takes me back:
Bernard Woolley: "Shall I file it?"
Jim Hacker: "File it? Shred it!"
Bernard Woolley: "Shred it??"
Jim Hacker: "Nobody must ever be able to find it again."
Bernard Woolley: "In that case, Minister, I think it is best I file it."
Re: (Score:2)
Surveys are worse than statistics (Score:2)
Did they just ask
Do you think violent and suggestive games should not be sold to vulnerable young children ?
Or did they also ask
Do you think parents should supervise children in the playground ?
Do you think parents should prevent children from watching some TV shows ?
Do you think parents should prevent children from playing some violent games ?
Do you think parents should supervise children who play online games ?
I would like to see how the second set of questions line up with the first.
Ultra violent (Score:2)
Are f***ing kidding me? (Score:2)
I will rip those goddam adults' arms off! It will be a real-life Fatality! Where can I get a frickin' chainsaw and my BFG9000???
I'll leave them in worse shape than Romero left Daikatana!
/facepalm (Score:2)
How about a ban on violent behavior from adults in front of children? Or how about letting children opt out of religious organizations if they don't like being forced into one!!??
It's all in the questioning.... (Score:2)
I have to wonder, remembering the hysteria that Janet Jackson's nipple caused at the super bowl, how much that one word there influenced the vote...
Kids should get it the old fashioned way, TV (Score:2)
just like their parents.
Too much of the crap on TV is far worse than games, I doubt games can have a rape/child abuse/etc of the week type scenario and have it fly by.
"Common sense" Media (Score:2)
Give me a BREAK! How is it "common sense" to treat minors like idiots? Do the "adults" running that freakshow just want to feel superior to their kids? Do they seriously think that fake violence will corrupt their youth? Do they think those kids will not grow up if they keep them away from some kinds of stimuli?
There has never been a time when children were as shielded from violence as they are now, and violent video games are hardly the same as kids helping slaughter animals at dad's farm, or kids shooting
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, yes those thing are also violent but that doesn't make then good or healthy.
unstated Major Premise fallacy.
They are not treating minor likie idiots. They just created a tool for parents to utilize.
I don't want 13 year olds to be able to buy a gun, alcohol, or 'violent ' video game. But here is the problem..ready?
What defines violent? well, you can't really put 'levels' of violence into law. So you make it generic and then let the parent DECIDE.
That's all this is. It's not an attack in a child intelligen
Yeah... (Score:2)
Word play: games have *simulated* violence (Score:2)
In the first, actual violence is occurring. People getting struck, etc. In the second, it's just flashing images on a TV screen depicting violence. Nobody gets physically struck. Yet both are called violent.
We already have this (Score:2)
Games in the UK are given BBFC ratings (U, PG,12,15,18) like films and just like films you can only purchase them if you are over that age.
Seems pretty fucking simple, what's the big deal? I'd much rather a game was restricted to 18+s only than banned outright.
Reminds me of something George Carlin said (Score:2)
"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"
Why is violent video games a bad thing in a country where guns are the ultimate right?
I love surveys (Score:3, Funny)
"Are you in favor of, neutral to or against the potential sale and promotion of games that may occasionally exhibit mischief and violence to minors?"
Versus
"Are you in favor of games that expose children to graphic violence, or do you hate America? Why do you hate America?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)