Innocuous California Game Ratings Bill Passed

Thanks to GamePro for its article noting that a newly revised bill "that requires video game retailers to clearly display signs of the game ratings has been passed by the state senate in California." The bill, "now waiting to be signed by Governor Schwarzenegger", was originally paired with a more controversial bill which "called to define 'atrocious or cruel' video games as 'harmful matter to children'", but that pairing failed to advance, despite support from bill sponsor Leland Yee, leading to a straightforward "requirement to have game ratings clearly displayed, and also have information about the ratings system readily available to parents purchasing games."

Comments

Re:Ratings

[delus10n0]

sales representative inquire if the game is actually for the children and that it might not be suitable.

They train the employees at GameStop to do this very thing. Whether or not they remember to ask is another matter..

When I was in a GameStop last week to buy Doom3, a mom and son had come in, and he instantly ran over and picked up Grand Theft Auto: VC for XBox, asking his mom to buy it. She didn't even look at the box (like you said) and took it to the counter to pay. The GameStop employee told her that the game was rated "M" which meant it was rated mature, and that children probably shouldn't play it. He actually described what was in the game, too.. cussing, sexual things, violence, killings, and told her to review the back of the box. She got disgusted and told her son to put it back, and that they were leaving.

Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

[macdaddy]

California. What can I say about California that no one else has? Let me see. One town in California tried this past year (might have succeded by now) to outlaw .50 caliber rifles. They were all up in arms about how they could be used to shot the large refinery fuel tanks near their community. For starters rounds much smaller than a .50 caliber round will puncture a steel storage tank. Hell a 30-06 loaded heavy will puncture the tank at 200 yards easy. Their logic was that no one had any legitimate reason to own a .50 caliber firearm. I've only ever seen .50cal blackpowder rifles. That's a popular sport and has entire hunting seasons dedicated to it. 50AE J+P rounds also make an excellent personal defense round. Basically that city council fell prey to the typical sensationalism pumped out by anti-gun groups which is commonly amplified by the media. Fun stuff. There's no logical reason to ban .50cal weapons. Much smaller rounds can cause just as much damage. It was probably just some campaign rhetoric to get some councilmeber re-elected.

I also happen to know a little bit about how California created its banned weapon list. IIRC the list was compiled for California's AG and possibly California's Lt. Governor from a few years back. I recall reading about correspondence between the two that talked about the creation of the list. They basically said they didn't want to involve the state's bureau of investigation to have them look at their statistics and give their professional assesment. The reason being was that it would take longer than they wanted to wait and the recommendations by the CBI wouldn't support the position these two individuals wanted to take. So basically lets ignore the pros and make our own uneducated decision. Genius in action. So how did this dynamic duo create the banned weapon list? Well it was really quite simple. Too simple. They took a book of firearms (blue book for guns?), flipped through it, and picked out the guns that looked (LOOKED) dangerous. In case you didn't get that the first time let me repeat myself. They picked out the guns that *****LOOKED***** dangerous regardless of whether or not they really are. They banned weapons that looked like assault [sic] weapons (I'm intentionally using the phrase "assault weapons" incorrectly but in the same way commonly misused for political reasons). If they happened across a picture of a deer rifle in an ominous-looking synthetic stock they banned the gun outright (after all we all know it's the mean looking stock that makes the big bad piece of pipe more deadly, right?). They didn't however ban the same weapon, a common deer rifle, in a wood grain stock. Identical actions. Different stocks. I guess the gun isn't lethal when it has a dark walnut stock. Go figure. My personal favorite was a shotgun they banned. I can't for the life of my remember what model it was but it looked a lot like the grease gun (M3A1). It looked like four pieces of pipe, 2 for the stubby handles and 2 screwed together for the barrel and chamber. A gun like that can only be described as fugly. The gun wasn't the heavy duty 10-gauge or the quite common 12-gauge badass. It wasn't the not so common 16-gauge (I have a 16ga Savage) or the ubber common 20ga. Forget about the small 24ga or the tiny 28ga. The banned shotgun wasn't even a 32ga or the teeny freaking tiny 36ga (actual, not relic). The banned shotgun was a .410. A .410 !!! That is damned tiny. Think pencil. It gets even better. This oh so lethal .410 shotgun is somewhat unique. It doesn't use a tube magazine like most shotguns. It can't use a drum magazine like you see in the gangster movies. This ubber dangerous shotgun in a single-shot breech-loading bolt-action shotgun. One shot. That's all you get. Then you have to eject the spent cartridge, pop in a new one, an