Slashdot Mirror
Violent Video Game Protection Act
KidIcarus writes: "Four lawmakers in Georgia have submitted a bill that would make it a criminal offense to sell or make violent video games available to minors. Full text of the bill here. Seems that politicians still don't have a clue, despite indications that video games don't cause violence." This may remind you of the (since overturned) law segregating certain video games from others in Indianapolis.
But of course it's OK for CNN et al to show scenes of mass slaughter of innocents.
Isn't this a double standard displaying a bias against gamers...
Remember kids! Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people.
I'd like to see how they can even think it'll hold up in a court of law. This one should be so simple to beat down, I can't imagine it would even help in an election race.
The reality is that you cannot discriminate towards one particular form of something. Case in point would be pornography. Ok, if we restrict pornography, then we have to do in all forms of media.
The point was made previously, but if the law was non-discriminatory, this would mean that most news publications, not just on television, but also print and web would have to avoid allowing minors to access such things.
Personally, I'd like to see how this would affect demos downloaded off the Internet. Can you imagine id Software getting prosecuted because some kids in Georgia downloaded a Quake demo?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
They're trying to stop me from playing my violent games? KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!
Dammit, I'm gonna rocket jump over to their house and grenade spam their house, but first I gotta find the red key to get inside....lemme bunny hop over to that building that says central control......
Tim Dorr
Owner/Manger
A Small Orange
Man, this stuff makes me really angry! I hate ignorant politicians like these guys who want to take away our electronic rights! Someone should smash into them with a Hadoken Fireball! Or take the chaingun into the Georgia legislative building corridors! Or jump on top of their stupid turtle-like heads! Or grab an energizer and give them a taste of their own medicine! Or something!
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
In any event, they tried something of the sort in Indiana if you recall a while back. Court smacked them down like a pimp slapping down a 2 dollar hooker. If I were one of the hypothetical residents of Georgia, I'd be pretty pissed off that the legislature was wasting our tax dollars that way, since they'd have to know there'd be no way it'd survive a constitutional challenge.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Once again, the elected leaders of Georgia demonstrate why this state is still ranked 49th in education quality . It's stupidity that leads to violence. Since this state is chock full of stupid people it might explain the high violent crime rate. Sadly, as more people pass through the public school process in Georgia, the situation will only get worse. We might even sink below Mississippi at some point .
The politicans just want a scapegoat for the violence they see in schools. THey blame video games becuase its easy and noone really understands anyway.. but why are politicans trying to pass a bill? in fact why would politicans do anything? Its becuase they get alot of pressure from people who actually take the time and write to them, complaining. in this case politicans got a lot of letter from ignorant angry americans who just want to se something done more then actually finding the real cause or taking and real responsibitly for their actions. these same ignorant americans are probably the same ones that use proxy parenting, "if the government says its good, then my children should be seeing it" As you've seen, slashdot is noticed and heard. It can become a real political powerhouse if everyone who disagreed with the governemt actually wrote to their senators (americans that is) its as easy as printing your comment and mailing it to your favoirte senator, or assemblymen. (snail mail becuase no one really takes e-mail seriously)
Sun is Warm, Grass is Green
As a parent, I can understand why some people think that playing Max Payne would be like training for the next Columbine. Violence runs rampant in our media.
But it always has. The greatest literature, and some of the most thoughtful movies (Schindler's List and Platoon come to mind) are rife with violence. The difference is the follow-through. Showing a full consideration of the effects, or the struggle against violence is often what sets stories of violence apart as literature.
Would I want these games banned? No. The ratings system that is in place is what I use. Before my kids get a game, I evaluate it. Only the responsible ones get through.
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
Seems that politicians still don't have a clue, despite indications that video games don't cause violence.
Well, that's not really even what the GameSpot article says, and can you guess the slant that the GameSpot article takes on the original Surgeon General's report?
The Surgeon General's report states that violent video games can be a factor, but is not a sole motivator for violent behavior.
If it's a factor, then further studies should be done to determine how much of a factor it is. Put some numbers on it.
I certainly don't have reservations about preventing the very young from having too-easy access to harmful things. I'm a big freedoms-type Libertarian, but young people often don't have the maturity to be able to handle a full set of freedoms. It's why we restrict driving, voting, and other rights that we grant freely to adults. It's also the reason why minors' criminal records are sealed and they're given special sentencing considerations when they commit crimes.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Can someone please explain to me why the "Slashdot Consensus" seems to be in disagreement of things like this?
Why is having enforcable ratings on video games a bad thing? After all, we have movie ratings and no one is complaining.
So a salesman will now stop some 10 year old kid from buying Mortal Kombat 7, with ultra-bloody effects. Isn't this better than being stuck with a one-version-fits-all where the blood is replaced by sweat?
Without ratings, all movies would suck. They would have to stay within certain limits. This bill is about enforcing who is able to purchase a game based on content (ie, rating). Such enforcement only encourages developers to be as artistic as possible, and not worry about angry parents. The ratings are here to protect not only children, but developers.
Christ almight. I sure hope that 4 lawyers from Georgia don't know what's best for our children.
What part of "fiction" are the lawyers not understanding about video games? Is it because they look "real"? Maybe it'd be cheaper to put children into sound proof booths, feeding them cool tea and pudding to help protect them from all the evils in the world.
Of course, video games are not the "only" cause of youth violence, there is NO single cause. The media seems to always look for a single "magic bullet" (e.g. bombing Afghanistan won't stop terrorism...no, duh!) But by taking an incrimental approach and trying to get a handle on the VARIOUS factors that encourage any behavior, including violence, you can have a positive effect on the problem.
And since when are we concerned about the old USSR anyway(someone look at an old map first)?
I really hate Dan Patrick.
they could have stopped Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson & Hitler....
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
"Gee officer, the law doesn't say I did anything wrong. Sure, my big brother got me the pot, and then my daddy gave me the $50 hooker for my birthday, but _I_ didn't go buy it. I mean, the nice homeless guy bought me those cigarettes too! Really, what's the problem?? I was able to see all of this between the fuzzy lines on the scrambled-porn channel on cable!"
C'mon... I don't agree with this sort of legislation either, but the argument "We shouldn't legislate this because kids are going to do it anyway" wears a bit thin. If public outcry is going to stop crap like this, it sure as heck won't be through this sort of tactic.
Notice: Your mouse has been moved. Windows will now restart so this change can take effect.
Everyone here throws a fit about everything!
Look, the point of this law is to put the decision of game content into the hands of the parents. If the parent wants the child to own a Mature rated game, the parent can go with the child to purchase it. Same goes for R rated movies. It's the same damn thing. It's not discrimination, it's not politicians not knowing anything about computers or games or violence. It's the same thing as R rated movies.
The video game industry has finally become large enough to get noticed, and at the same time the content is becoming more realistic - more movie like.
This isn't going to get struck down, people. There's nothing wrong with it. Face the fact that until you're 18, there are some decisions your parents get to make for you. That's always been the case.
I remember the joy on my friends face when we were both 14 and I came to germany with a smuggled copy of a fully gored up quake 1 :)
and then seeing command and conquer where people bleed oil!? It's an important thing that germany has good broadband coverage to get the uncut versions of games.
To which all the TV addicts scream, "we are not addicted, we can watch anytime we want"
Of course, if TV can cause some sort of a hypnotic or trance state, then all bets are off. Of course, then you have these guys who call every focused mental activity a trance, which is a bit off the mark as well
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I will not let my daughter play Soldier Of fortune, Quake I,II,III , UT, Halflife, GTA III .. because she is 10 years old and she is not ready to understand the line between fantasy/make believe and real life. But you know what, THAT"S MY JOB! no R movies, and some PG movies, No the family Guy, Simpsons, South Park... Because she is 10 years old. and you know what? I control it fine. I explain to her when she asks why not, and she respects me and my rules. This is what a parent is supposed to do, Raise their children, teach them limits, and be a mentor/role model. No, I dont say... "Go to bed, the raunchy show I wont let you watch is on, and I want to watch it." Like the trailer trash in the world. I record it for later viewing AFTER she has gone to bed at a regular time or at times she is not here. Same as any LAN parties I host. she is not to be in the house.
The difference between a real parent and the horrible jerks is that a real parent put their children before ANYTHING ELSE. I want to drink some beers friday night, my daughter is puking with the flu... I'm home with her. I'm at her cheerleading, girl-scouts events, play's at school.
If your child isnt #1 in your life above your job and "hobbies" then you aren't a parent. Any law trying to stop kids from buying "bloody beheading fest 2004" wont stop them, just like the law that makes it illegal to sell a kid tobacco.. Oh yeah that one works. and the alcahol laws... those work well too.... NOT.
I dont want any damned laws that are worthless and try to make up for the bad/ lazy parenting.. How about passing a law that punishes parents for being horrible parents? or better yet, you have to get a license to become a parent? we dont let horrible drivers get a drivers license (well, we do now) why do we let people raise a human being without finding out of they can?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is from David Cross's HBO Special. I felt it was rather relevant.
... what were the video games he gave to the entire German republic?
"I don't like the leaping logic that it's violence in the media. They act like violence didn't exist before TV shows and Natural Born Killers. Like, you know, the guy that climbed the bell tower in the 60's, in Austin Texas, what was the violent movie that he watched? I can't remember what it was.
"And i'm sorry, what were the video games that Hilter used to play, you know? You know, before he went out and
"It's ridiculus. Here is the thing. Like, look, if you just program Touched by An Angel, and Providence, and Family Practice and that bull shit, I'll fucking kill somebody."
Anyway, violence existed way before video games. I figured most of us would be repeating the same theme, but I thought I would add a little humor in the mix.
My thought, however, is until we start teaching nonviolence and self control through our actions at home, schools or even in our government, how do we expect keeping violent videos games from minors to be the way to start?
Interesting how changing "gun" to "knife" makes the argument so much more fatuous, isn't it? And yet a knife is far less deadly than a 'scoped rifle...
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The fact you talk about killing your teacher is the problem. Your idiotic notions that saying you're going to kill someone is ok causes ten times as many problems as playing violent video games. The fact you wouldn't kill someone out of respect for guns is sad considering your respect for human life is less than that for guns. That's pretty fucked up and sad. I would have said the same thing when I was sixteen even though I played violent video games and had a gun. I guess video games didn't fuck me up or I just wasn't stupid.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
In past generations, kids brought guns to school and left them in their lockers to go hunting afterwards. No "school shooting" problem.
The problem isn't guns: it's bad kids. Taking away people's 2nd amendment rights in no way "attacks the real problem". Nor does videogame labeling or censorship.
Here's the question...
did you father or whatever adult that taught you weaponry teach you the basics? Like dont point a gun at something unless you want it dead? Always use the safety, NEVER keep ammo in a stored weapon, NEVER EVER keep one chambered unless you are hunting or shooting?
The basics that are the mantra of the NRA are the most important part of good gun use. My 10 year old daughter has gone shooting (cute little 22 rifles) she loves it, and I am teaching her basic gun safety, Athough I go overboard a bit.. she knows that even pointing an empty gun at anything is dangerous and has a good chance of killing. you never put your gun away without a complete cleaning and inspection, the guns go in their cas and in the safe.
yes, as far as the Liberal Left is concerned I'm raising a gun-toting freak. but in reality I am rasing a child that for the rest of her life knows that guns are NOT toys, they can be very dangerous if you dont use them right.
I firmly believe that EVERY child when they get into 4th grade should be taught basic gun safety and should be taught to respect guns. Maybe we would have less morons running around trying to cap every fool they think diss them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Why not pass a law called the "Anti-uncool-kid preppy social clique protection act" instead? That would go a lot further in protecting the at risk kids' sanity.
I am a lot less shocked when I see sex on TV now(i.e. not at all), that I was when I first started seeying this kind of thing at age 18.
Look at me, I'm probably one of the most peacefull guys on earth yet I play RTCW, MOHAA, Unreal and plenty others. I even put a little trash talking into it.
Shouldn't things like this be more uniform? IT would be acceptable to say that all games with an M or 17+ rating be out of reach of minors, but individually specifying 'violence', 'sex', etc. is ridiculous. First of all, it shows how dumb these government officials of ours are. Second, and more importantly, I could make videogames that brainwash kids into joining the Skinheads / Nazis / Taliban / whatever, and they would be perfectly legal for anyone to buy.
I can see it now, a game with barney telling kids who they should hate. Or better yet the teletubbies... Everyone already knows they're evil.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
How long will it be before we will outlaw children using their thumb and index finger to make a "gun" to play cops & robbers? Oh yeah, a child was suspended for school for that already.
If guns (and therefore video games, TV and movies that depict guns) are the root of our violence problems in america why the hell didn't my fathers generation kill each other at record rates? Have you SEEN this roy rogers guy? He carries a gun and used it several times! How about that show gunsmoke? EVERYONE carried a gun, and someone got shot in EVERY episode! Not like todays "Charlies Angels" where none of the heroes are allowed to use guns. It wouldn't be PC, and god knows that if Cameron Diaz used a firearm in a movie I might go Columbine on your ass!
I remember a frontline article that compared the affects of media on young people to a feedback loop. What our PC culture accepts as normal is so narrow in it's focus that normal behavior that has been in children and teenagers since the dawn of time is now somehow so aberrant that you have to drug you kid out of his mind
If society as a whole can't stand simple age appropriate behavior, we are all in for a rough ride. Outlawing video games is just a silly step that some very misguided people are taking for political expediency. If you truly want to stop the violence you have to start early you have to
1. Have both parents involved (which is hard if they both have to work 70 hours a week to make ends meet. Some parents are additionally pretty heavily medicated at that!)
2. You must have a have school system that actually cares about something besides how good the football team is and how fashionable dressed the students are. Not all student problems can be taken care of with a "magic pill"
3. Have a society that kicks silly politicians out on their can when the pull these knee jerk reactions
I don't hold out much hope
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Why would someone want to have a gun? It's a dangerous weapon, it's not like you're at war or something.
Actually, I'd say that videogames probably PREVENT a lot of violence... check how people are absorbed in Quake-Style games, and how emotionnal they get sometimes while playing (spacebar-tapping harder, moving their shoulders, etc) I mean, this is an EXCELLENT aggressivity release...it disconnect you totally and make you forget all the crappy day I had...
My position is really simple: If someone has to be violent and go up and shoot people at a certain moment in his life, he'll do it, period. Videogames WON'T be what is going to trigger it, look at molesting parents, peer preasure in school, gangs, etc. The problem with americans and Canada (I am canadian) is that they NEED to blame ONE source for all their problems, they need to see it's not THEIR fault, but OTHERS, while it could be true in some cases (being others), it's completely irrationnal to blame Videogames to this extent.
You know what's ironic about all this? When they'll discover it doesn't change anything, they won't remove that law, they'll simply encourage more piracy among younger people (which is, by the way, a great way to educate them into NEVER buying stuff in the future), and helping of killing a part of an industry that sells well and that they are getting buttload taxes from. Sometimes I wonder how a politician thinks, heck I wonder if they think at all when they are pulling stuff like this.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
and before all this regulation when 10 year olds went hunting with their fathers, how many school shootings were there?
parental responsibility, not legal mandates will stop school killings. Parents taking the time away from their precious TV to teach by example (not just tell) their childern what is right and wrong.
quit blaming objects, there was death and destruction before video games and before guns
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
personally i think parents should take a more active role in the lives of their children. then people will say "we dont have the time to monitor everything our children do". personally i think you should wait until you have time, then have children.
back when i was young, this lady named tipper started something called the parents music resource center (pmrc). she, and a few other senators wives with nothing better to do, started lobbying the major record labels for a rating system. eventually they got the major record labels to comply, but some others wern't all that quick to adhere to their "moral" views (see at).
so what was their solution? picket any stores that sell this music that they dont approve of. this leads to bands being blacklisted because they dont think morals should be dictated to them. one of the bands was the dead kennedys, an antigovernment band whos lead singer didnt have alot of nice things to say about tippers husband when he ran for election in 2000 (not that he had many nice things to say abou bush either).
so who cares right? i do, there is a small subset of the population dictating what is "morally right" and i dont think that bodes well with the liberties given to people by our constitution. this allows parents to be less responsible at a time when they should be _MORE_ responsible. i want parents to stop looking for external excuses for their childrens' behaviour and start to accept that they have to participate in the lives of their children to be a good parent.
-- john
Note: I don't think guns or video games are dangerous or cause violence. I firmly believe those things can always be traced back to stupid people.
"He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing." - Socrates, Plato's "Apology"
Violence does in fact breed violence. The violence presented by video games is not the creator of violence in society, but rather the result of violence in society.
There is no logical reason why one should enjoy engaging in violence, be it simulated or real. It is an expression of a deeper emotional problem. Perhaps instead of trying to ban violence in video games, or trying to protect violence in video games, our society should try address why our society is so infatuated with violence to begin with. If you try to fight a fire by pumping in fresh air to replace the smoke, it's only going to burn hotter.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
If the parent wants the child to own a Mature rated game, the parent can go with the child to purchase it. Same goes for R rated movies. It's the same damn thing [...] This isn't going to get struck down, people. There's nothing wrong with it. Face the fact that until you're 18, there are some decisions your parents get to make for you. That's always been the case.
Nuts to that.
For starters, I'm sick of having to carry around "papers" and pull the damn thing out to prove I'm old enough to do/see/drink something.
Secondly, the ages are absurd. They are so out of line with what kids (rightly) do anyway that it's not even funny--For hell's sake, I was shown R rated movies in *school* quite a bit before I was 17, and nobody thought anything of it at the time! And don't get me started on drinking...
Thirdly, have you ever considered that letting your kids out of the house unsupervised *is* parental consent? I seriously doubt my parents were ever unaware of my location (at least to the extent of not knowing what other adult was watching me) for the hours(?) it takes to rent a violent game and play it, not to mention getting access to an unwatched game console and TV until I was well old enough for that to be the least of their worries, and it's not like my parents were terribly strict at all... Quite the opposite, the psycho strict parents that actually didn't want their poor sheltered 18 year old kids seeing "bad" things kept quite enough watch on them to pretty much succeed at keeping them from developing any social skills at all.
Fourthly, have you considered the effect the "assume no consent unless the parent is present" laws have on the kids' respect for legitimate law? You know *something* rubs off when your parents don't mind their 17 year old son being out after curfew, just don't get caught. Or setting reasonable limits on the drinking habits of a 19-year old, with the obvious disregard for the ludicrously strict rules politicians have decided are appropriate (and the tacit approval of more serious deception, such as the venerable fake ID).
I suppose the last one is a lesson, though. It's not enough to teach your children that there are rules to be followed, but also there are rules to be disregarded, as well...
--
Benajmin Coates
You know something, I remember plenty of violent, unpleasant, and sexually explicit images I saw as a kid, and you know what; I'd rather I hadn't seen them. The fact that they're still with me shows that things we can brush off now can have an entirely different effect on children.
No she doesnt go to sleepovers where I haven't met the parents and got to know them. I do not give my child uip for care to another adult or adults without researching them or getting to know them. you dont just pick a day care person out of the phone book and shove the kids off to them without doing some basic background checking, any parent that alows the kids to just "hang" without knowing what is going on, what is there, etc.. is the same bad parent. Hell, how do I know that her friends father or mother arent pedophiles or kiddie porn peddlers? Or if her friends older brother really likes little girls? by research and not trusting them. I also know my daughter will say NO and will tell me if anyone does something to them or tries to force anything on them.. she learned from day one that daddy can make any bad person go away and anyone that says differently is lying and only trying to scare her. She is well informed, she knows about drugs and how only the dumbest people take them, and she knows about liquor. I dont smoke, her mother does and when she comes home from visitation she always wants to take a bath or shower right away to get the smoke smell off. (Yes I have custody as my ex-wife is one of those bad parents.) The key is to be a parent instead of what people today call parenting. I dont go out to parties, bar hopping or clubbing on friday or saturday nights, I dont have by buddies over for a night of poker, cigars, and booze. I chose to have a child. and I am sticking by the promise I made to that child when she came into this world, by being her best friend, her mentor, her teacher, her care giver, and her protector. anyone that does less that that is not a parent.
So, I have no problem with it. she doesnt go anywhere that I haven't researched already. and my daughter is a happy, super smart child. she has her own computer and the horrible horrible internet on it and she was told when she got it and when friends come over that I know everything she sees and goes to. Granted I use Squid to block the obvious porn sites (and the AD sites) so that she doesnt get slammed with porn when searching for N-stink or Christina Augleria. and her email address goes through procmail (same as mine) to filter out the crap.
It takes little effort to raise a good honest child. It's just most parents dont want to be bothered with it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
NOT ALL PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 ARE UTTER IDIOTS!!!
There are many of us who are quite able to seperate reality from Quake, we aren't all hormonally overstimulated jerks, some of us are actually capable of rational thought, most of us see "drugs are bad for you" school assemblies as redundant, and some of us are justified in looking down upon some of our teachers in terms of intelligence and rationality.
Perhaps a better standard would be to keep violent video games away from idiots, whatever their age. But these senators wouldn't like that. They wouldn't be able to see the games then, while some of the more intelligent teenagers in Georgia wouls be playing them.
No, they would never go for a policy that didn't assume that minors are idiots.
It does not really mention videogames much.
They attribute a noxious combination of drug sales, gangs, and access to illegal firearms (Which were already so (It's been illegal as long as I can remember for a minor (under 21) to own a handgun save via inheritance, and even then they can't use it without adult supervision until that age...) before any new legislation- keep that in mind folks...)- it isn't what they're pegging as the problem.
Just like most clueless politicians- go for the quick, easy, unrelated fix that won't do a damn thing for the real problems.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I am personally a huge free speech person, and if this were happening in my state, I would join whatever local political group was trying to make sure the bill did not pass.
However, I think it is Georgia's right to do this if they really want to. I am conservative, and conservatives believe that local and state communities, not the federal government, should be in charge of most things, including community standards. I greatly oppose acts like the CDA or COPA because they are mandates from on high that completely ignore the fact that some communities do not want it.
But if Georgia really believes its community does not want the sale of violent video games to minors, and the citizens want that (by not joining groups to oppose it, electing conservative politicians, etc.), then I see absolutely no problem with the state of Georgia enacting this community standard.
It is not as if they are even banning the games (which I think I might still support). They are for sale. Adults can buy them. If parents think their kids are ready, the parents can buy the games for their children. What is the harm? Parents are able to make a choice about what they want their kids exposed to, the community is protected, free speech is protected, and it is a decision made by the local populace for the local populace.
On Slashdot, we often complain how the federal government is doing this or that, and how parents are no longer able to make the call. Here is a situation that should make us all happy. Recognize a good thing when you see it.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Are you seriously suggesting that anti-gun legislation has NEVER prevented guns falling into the wrong hands?
I would be suggesting exactly that. There is quite an element of truth in the saying "If you outlaw [illegal item], then only outlaws will have [illegal item]." Witness prohibition in the 1920's. It just made alcohol harder to get, lower quality (higher methanol content increased rates of blindness dramatically) and more expensive. Plus, it allowed the Mob to become more powerful because you could only get your liquor from the Mob (incidentally, most of the Kennedy family fortune was alleged to have been made through liquor-peddling). Same thing with guns. You pay more for weapons because they are illegal. And since they are unregulated, you don't know who has them and you can't track their use. Great if you want to commit a crime like armed robbery or murder because illegal items have no paper trail. The original poster has a point because kids or criminals who want to obtain guns, firearms etc badly enough will find a means. What outlawing does is tip the supply in favour of criminals, who don't care about the law and don't operate inside it. Ergo, it doesn't matter to them, only to us law-abiding folk.
I'd instead argue that the main objection to this legislation by this forum is not because 10-year-olds won't be able to get SOF2, but that this is yet another piece of legislation politicians are introducing to "improve" our lives. We are objecting not to the regulation of our lives, but to the overregulation of our lives. We expect laws to provide reasonable limits on our behaviour, not to dictate our lives.
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
I grew up with guns (well, mostly shotguns and the odd rifle). My father was a hunter (small game generally: partridge, rabbit), fisherman, and general outdoorsman. I learned firearm safety at an early age, and while I didn't take up hunting (really, it was a lot of effort, and while you can't buy wild partridge, I was happy with chicken -- wild game is a luxery that I can live without), this was useful basic safety training, along the lines of "don't touch a hot stove, don't run into traffic, etc."
Most of my friends had a similar upbringing: their fathers had firearms, whether for hunting or sport.. rarely with the primary intent of defense, but that was a useful "double duty" option.
We didn't go around shooting our peers or go on a killing rampage in our schools. Guns were just another somewhat dangerous "tool", like knives, and chainsaws.
If anything gun-related is to be blamed for gun violence in society, perhaps it should be the nonchalant or glorified unrealistic portrayal firearms are given by movie-makers.
You could've hired me.
Has it ever occurred to anyone else that Gran Turismo and Need for Speed have more to do with people getting killed than Half-Life or Quake[I,II,III]?
Think about it: how many kids actually go out and buy BFG's, RPG's, and Shotguns? Probably none. Ok, how many kids buy souped up little imports and go freeway racing? A whoooole bunch (at least in southern california). Yet racing games get rated E.
Why is that?
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
The ESRB and MPAA ratings and the enforcement of their ratings are not currently mandated by law. They're self-regulated, ultimately voluntary systems.
Enforcement of the MPAA ratings is done mostly through economic means and trade association pressure, and not by law.
There's a big step between a voluntary, self-censorship system and a legislated restriction on access to speech.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
It's interesting that while retailers have voluntarially tried to restrict sales of "violent" games to minors, developers are not required to have their games rated by organizations like the ESRB. So, what is to happen? Require every game software title to be rated by the ESRB? What about independent game developers? Last I heard, having your game rated by the ESRB isn't cheap.
What's amusing is that I submitted this story - twice - yesterday morning. And it was rejected - twice.
Guess I must've pissed some dork off.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
God forbid that our children should be exposed to fictional violence. We ban them from the movies, from computer and video games...but what about books? Books are incredibly violent and worse, the violence takes place in the unrestricted space of the imagination! Who knows what damage takes place when a child *imagines* violence spurred on by a violent story, without the limiting effects of graphics technology?
Yes, friends, it's time to start banning books. At the very least they should be labeled as to their violent content. God knows the parents don't have time to judge the content of a book, so letting strangers do it for them is perfectly sensible.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
first off, you are quite mistaken. i for one am complaining, and i'll take this opportunity to do so. the rating system is an arbitrary piece of shit, that is based on ancient puritan/victorian values. values that i for one do not subscribe to. i believe that nudity is not filthy, and i object to having these values foisted on the next generation including any offspring that i might have. i think that much important storytelling involves violence and lust. i think these stories are important to tell children. i don't think that letting them imagine the world as all flowers and candy till they have to deal with it is a good idea. i think it's kinda twisted.
now that's not to say i don't think there are things i would rather not have my children see. for example anything promoting racism, anything promoting feelings of shame and inadequacy over perfectly normal and healthy behavior are not appreciated by me. the christian ethic of not touching another person until marriage by a catholic priest is sort of disgusting to me. i would rather my children not be taught these ideas by the media.
now you may not exactly agree with me, or maybe you do, and that's exactly the point. no system will keep all children from seeing stuff that their parents object to. while one film might bother some parents, it might be a wonderful learning experience as far as another is concerned, and vice versa. the only way to keep a child from viewing any objectionable media in an objective kind of a way is to not let the kid view anything at all, and keep him in a little box with a lock that only the parents can open to let stuff in. i will assume that total sensory deprivation of our children is something that nobody wants.
so now that i've complained about movie ratings, let me complain about video game ratings. what will we decide is violent? is shooting down planes in jet fighter games violent? is killing aliens in invaders violent? are hunting games violent? (as a vegetarian i think so, a family that hunts might think otherwise) and if we even defined that, who says that violent games are bad? and how do i cast my vote to say that they are not? where do i have some choice in how my child shall be censored by default?
this seems to leave us with only two objective choices: censor nothing, or censor everything. i personally say we should not censor anything at all. individual parents will have to do that, and they will have to decide how to accomplish it. ultimately it comes down to how much control you have over your child, which you shall find out soon is not as much as you hoped. that is unless you are caring, explain your reasons for disliking a specific kind of media, and respect your child's choice in the matter.
to me the most horrifying factor in all this is how much parents and the government are eager to "protect the children" without even freaking pausing to ask the children themselves what they think on the matter. most young adults over the age of 13 probably have valuable oppinions on the matter, and i can bet you they don't involve being "saved." children are eager to take responsibility and to grow up. if they see you watching violent movies with mature themes, they will be eager to take up this habit. if you think there is something wrong with this then why do you do it. if you think there is nothing wrong with it, then why are you teaching them that there is?
this entire moral mode of protecting children from real life has gone on since we stopped sending children off to apprenticeships some centuries ago, and started sending them off to kindergarden. this represented a grave error on our part (i believe), and we should consider allowing children back into the real world. instead of trying to protect them from the evils of the "adult" world, let us do our job and help bring them into that world, it's where they'll be spending most of their life.
Man that was a great comeback. I guess you told me turbo. Was that you I saw running in the special olympics? I know you were proud about the gold medal but everyone wins one of those.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Where I live, and most other European countries, there isnt this problem with gun related violence. Criminals have guns, but look at the difference in crime rates (especially murder rate) between the US and European countries. Violence clearly does not solve violence. I simply cant go down to Wallmart and buy a gun and what's more; I dont have a need to. The problem in the US is that it is far too late to deal with easily; guns are accepted by society. I live in a society where you cant buy anything other than simple guns (eg. Shotguns, 22 rifles - mainly for farmers and country people), there are also *very* stringent laws regarding the ownership of guns - Guns should NOT be part of society by a 'long shot' (so to speak=) I feel sorry for the responsible citizens that live in the US that feel the need to buy a gun for protection. I am not critisizing you, but societies can do without guns. I am not saying that guns should be banned outright, it will require a long well thought out process to phase them out of US culture. I am just glad that I dont live in a place where I need to buy a gun to feel safe. However, I can empathize with you, if I were in your shoes I would probably own a gun. So not a personal attack on gun ownership, more of a reflection on the problems it gives a society. It is too easy to use hindsight and say it should have been nipped in the bud decades ago, the reality is that they are part of US culture and will be for a long time yet. The solution is not to simply ban guns completely, that would be ludicrous. They need to be phased out over a l_o_n_g period of time, gradually pushing them out of widespread acceptance. I feel that this wont be easily done due to all the pro gun lobbies, there is a hell of a lot of money in guns, its like the Oil business. Money talks. I cannot forsee weapons manufacturers (or a Republican government) allowing guns to be phased out of society without a hell of a fight. That greatly saddens me, that profit comes before people: Weapons manufacturers (and those other people who make big money from guns) will actively seek to make guns acceptable, when quite clearly, judging by every other civilised society, they are not. Gun ownership should be obsolete in a modern society (times have changed since the wild west=), but like I said before, profits come before people.
But...
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's from memory so bear with me if I'm not 100% accurate. Seems to me the second amendment states you have a right to join the national guard. One weekend a month, two weeks a year.
I'm all for RESPONSABLE people owning guns, and being a REASONABLE person, I've no problem with the government determining who the reasonable, responsable people are.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
I firmly believe that EVERY child when they get into 4th grade should be taught basic gun safety and should be taught to respect guns.
When you consider the statistics on teenage smoking, I'm dubious that education is the issue. Despite 20 years of health warnings, the teenage smoking rate is rising. 19% of teenage males and 27% of females smoke.
In any case, the unsafe use of fire arms is not the reason that guns are a problem. It's because they are used in crimes. You can see the limitations of the education approach if you were to say that every 4th grader should be taught not to commit a crime with a gun.
Yeah sure, how many stories have we heard of children accidently shooting themselves with there father's gun?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yet another Clinton legacy, this time Hillary.
Curious how the wording only pertains to the sale of violent games to minors, it has no mention of what the law will be for possession of a violent game by a minor will be.
Sounds similar to tobacco laws to me.
(it was Hillary Clinton who made the push for video game ratings)
Probably for the same reason you have to be 18 to buy a video of two people fucking - whatever that may be.
While I agree that perhaps a 10 year old doesn't need to be getting head shots and watching porn, I also think that 18 is a bit high (at least for the head shots). Hell, I saw Star Wars when I was like 7 or 8, and I knew that when someone got shot, they were dead, and that it was just a movie.
They can take away my gamepad...
...when they pry it away from my cold, dead fingers...
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
Violence is not a biological urge, it's a biological reaction. In an unprovoked environment, a person will not act out in violence (neither will an animal in a similiar environment). Upon provocation, then a violent reaction may occur.
Take a dog for instance. If properly care for (providing an ideal amount of food/exercise and the approriate social structure), the dog will not act out in violence. This is why people keep dogs as pets. If the dogs environment is not perfect, then he may act out in violence. But it not an uncontrollable biological urge, it is in fact reactions to the negatives in his environment.
This is how one can have a dog who is absolutely vicious to it's owner but then on the same hand, incredible tolerant and protective of a young baby. The dog acts out against the perceived threat.
So, we can arrange ourselves as a society to eliminate the biological response of violence. Merely trying to outlaw the response is unproductive though as the stimulate is not eliminated.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
killed, 2,000 of them children."
Why make the distinction that 2000 of the were children? Are they somehow more important than the 8000 adults? Why not just leave it at 10 thousand people? Or mention how many women and men were also killed? It's not like the children are any more important than anyone else.
This has gotten me so mad I need to go blow ppl up, Quake time!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Yes, children are important, because children in a case like that are guaranteed non-combattants. They're a little more innocent. They should never be shot at. Nor should anyone else. I take it you don't have kids yet. You'll understand a little better when all of your effort is spent on them.
But I do understand your point about human is human... if only others felt the same way.
Did you sit in a ditch in Afghnistan?
Do you know what is really going on?
Because I am five feet away from one who did, and who does know. Really... did you even read what I wrote before you labeled me "American Swine?"
Next time you want to talk about journalists not wanting to tell the truth, then you go F'n talk to the ones that slept in a ditch in a war zone. Cause I have a feeling that they care more about honesty in their jobs than you do about computing or whatever you do. Its so damn simple to just say "Stupid Americans," that it doesn't even register with us anymore.
Personally, as I said before and I WILL SAY AGAIN, it is an insult to those that go through hell to bring back footage and be branded as a propaganda machine.
If you want the European Version of this, petition Reuters to be like CNN. Better yet, start up "NNN" or Dutch NEWS NETWORK or something like that.
Nonsense. I know a lot of children, younger than 7, who can tell the difference between "real" violence (for example, news programmes reporting from war zones) and "stage" violence (like, fictional films set in war zones). Perhaps I'm dealing with exceptionally bright children, but they're even capable of making the distinction and connection between actors being "killed" and the "real people" the actors represent, in "historical" films or documentaries.
Perhaps it's a British thing. Mind you, even here the age limits are pretty wierd. You can buy cigarettes, ride a moped, and have a drink with a meal in a restaurant when you're 16, but you can't go to a pub and buy a drink until you're 18... Now, in the restaurant, someone *18 or over* has to buy you your drink, but on any other licensed premises, that would be illegal.
You can legally drink at home if you're 3 or older. Yes, three years old. Seriously.
And now you go on and make the assumption that I will someday have children, that the automatic desirable condition is one in which I possess children. I am afraid you are incorrect. I do not desire any children and my wife and I have taken the necessary medical steps to insure that we don't have any.
Children are not necessarily noncombatants, the vietnamese used children to deliver bombs to enemy troops primarily because the children were 'harmless'.
Personally I don't think ANYONE should ever be shot at under ideal circumstances. But the relative value of a child versus an adult isn't part of my evaluation and shouldn't be part of anyones. Humanity is humanity.
Oh, and you are hopelessly naive if you think children are innocent. All children are inherently evil (where evil is defined by being completely self centered, selfish, and self absorbed). IF you leave 5 2 year olds in a room together they will all be fighting inside 10 minutes. The ability to function in society as a polite and courteous human being is a learned one, and a lot of parents aren't teaching their kids anything.
Most of the young children I see today not only have fouler mouths than I do, but will actively torture each other to extremes I never saw until high school. I've seen kindergarteners kicking the CRAP out of a kid because he had on the wrong colored shirt. And yet everyone always claims that their child is innocent and precious, well you're all wrong. You're kid is just as much of an asshole as the rest of them until you train them out of it. Not the school, not their friends, not the church, not TV, not video games, not music, it's up to you to make sure the little hellbeast turns into some kind of presentable human approximate that has respect for the people around him.
(note: The above rant was not directed specifically at you El Camino, but directed at the general population of pro-natalist bastards that believe being a child automatically makes you better than everyone else and capable of doing no wrong)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji