Slashdot Mirror
DC Could Ban 'Mature' Video Game Sales to Minors
DeathPooky writes "As a part of an effort to continue a reduction in crime in the nation's former murder capital, DC leaders are trying to pass a law banning the sale of mature video games to minors - along with harsh penalties to enforce the law. According to the article, 'A store that violates the law could lose its business license and face a fine of as much as $10,000.' This law mimics other such bans proposed in Virginia and Maryland. I can already feel the chilling effects from here."
The Internet is a medium of anonymity. There's no easy way to prevent the sale of mature video games to minors without a huge invasion of privacy, another obstacle.
And who is defining what is mature content?
Yeah, because all of the crackhead murders spend all day either playing GTA: San Andreas or going on machine gun rampages.
And how is this different, than say, banning the sale of pornography to minors? Why is sex, a pleasant thing, shunned in favour of violence? I'd say it's a measure of a sick society. This is a logical move, though I think it would make more sense to lower the porn buying age.
Be relentless!
It's illegal to sell alcohol and tobacco products to minors also, it hasn't done very well in stopping anyone. If the kids want it, they'll find someone to get it for them.
Let DC pass their laws, keep the bible folk happy >.>
Remember children, all generalizations are wrong.
for the same reason we don't allow kids to buy pornography, for the same reason we don't allow kids to buy cigarettes, for the same reason we don't allow kids to buy alcohol, we shouldn't allow them to go to stores and buy video games
Yes we really should apply the same rules to a (fun) poison and a carcinogen that we do to porn and videogames.
-Colin
Movies that depict grotesque violence are also not allowed to be sold to minors. I know someone who once thought their child would be too young to really understand what was happening in teh move Alien and let him watch it with him. He may not of understood it, but it still scared the shit out him, and he had nightmares about for a few months afterwards.
Why should the sale of games not be restricted? This isn't censorship in the sense of preventing free speech, it's merely extending common sense -- not exposing children to disturbing scenes -- to law.
it will mean parents will be able to buy the game, screen it, and then decide if it is suitable for their kids.
This is better than having kids buying games that their parents wont know they are being exposed to.
Wasn't this the original pruporse of the ESRB clasification?
(flame on)
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
This is all a political stunt with no thought behind it.
Who decides what counts as "violent" and "mature"?
If they are accepting the ESRB definitions for Teen and Mature games and stuff, thats great.
But if they are trying to define a new definition for "violent" and "mature" games that is different (perhaps more restrictive) than what the ESRB and the industry define, then I have a big problem with that.
It is clear that the repressive forces of government are converging on the enjoyments commonly pursued by individuals in their teens and early twenties.
First came the so-called "War" on "Drugs", next was the crackdown on sexual behavior, especially so-called "unsafe sex", now we have a further restriction of "immoral content" in the media and this restriction of videogame sales.
It becomes obvious to any indivudual with two brain cells to rub together that the intent here is to prevent young people from finding any vent for their sexual urges and day-to-day frustration, with the result that they will be tempted to join the military in search of sex, debauchery and adventure, as they did in the time of Napoleon.
Thus we can see how the state plans to feed the war machine for its upcoming wars on Iran and other so-called "Axis of Evil" nations as well as lessening the population burden so that "Social Security Reform" will be successful. Any decent citizen should be shocked and appalled. I for one plan to vote Green next election.
I can already feel the chilling effects from here.
What chilling effects? That kids won't be able to buy video games that have too much violence in them? I don't see any issue with this. We should be heralding this as good. The worst thing that will happen is that a kid who wants a game is going to have to run it past mom and dad first. If they don't think he should have it, then so be it. That's what parenting is all about. This is a GOOD thing.
Which, also is why there are age limits on other things, for the most part. Parents are supposed to decide what is ok for their kids. If they don't want you to have alcohol, you can't get around them and go get it yourself. I think this is good.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
If something is rated mature it _should_ be forbiden to kids. Of course it won't change anything for real. I'm sure everyone had the first cigarrette, the first hangover and watched porn for the first time while still underage. The kids will find their alternatives.
You know, I don't think that it's violent games that are the problem. Don't get me wrong, unlike most /.ers, I DO think that playing violent games can have some impact on a person. It's not the same as a movie, in games you're a participant chosing your actions. In movies your just a witness. Still, the problem is with society. How about all the crappy parents who let their kids do drugs and join gangs? Who let the television and games raise their children? And most of all, the fact that a lot of parents today don't punish their children.
Seriously, when I was a kid, if I did something wrong I got spanked. Although it didn't bother me much, subconsiously it detered me from doing the same thing again. All these "newage" parents say spanking children is wrong, it spreads violence, etc. But if thats so, then why (with the dismise of capital punishmet) have things like the amount of teens in gangs done nothing but go up? And you can't say it isn't new, in the - for example - 50's there were gangs and organized crime, but that was the business of men, not boys.
Summary:
To raise good children do these things:
1. Take interest in and actually parent your children.
2. Kick their ass if they do crap. It won't screw them up if done in moderation (E.G. do it for punishment, not because you're a child abuser), and they might actually have some respect for authority.
How exactly do they check to see the age of someone buying off the Internet? And before someone says something like, "How do you expect a kid to buy it off the Net without a credit card?", there are gift cards that are easy to get.
While it's not vey difficult for a minor to get access to a game like Doom 3 (usually via a pirate-, errm, terrorist-homicidal-maniac-copy), it's flat-out illegal to sell him the game or advertise it openly. The law is a good thing actually. Shure we've got 14 years olds playing Doom 3 here too, but it's common ground that these games aren't for kids and grown ups are forced to look at what their children buy if it's a game that only grown ups can legally purchase.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Here in Australia the office of film and literature does games as well. Unfortunately they can't get it out of their heads that games are played by people other than kids.
We have a rating system of:
C - Children
G - General Exhibition
PG - Parental Guidance
M - Mature Audiences Recommended
MA - Mature Audiences Only (15+ only)
AV - Adult Violence (mainly used for TV)
R - 18+ only
X = 18+, pr0n
Only problem is there is no R rating (or AV or X for that matter) for games. This means games like Manhunt and Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude get banned from Australia! Heck, even GTA3 was banned until they removed the ability to pick up hookers and made it harder to run people over.
You might think this would not affect you elsewhere in the world, but really the makers want to reach a broad audience, so a lot of games will already be toned down in the rest of the world just so they can get it into the more stringent parts of the world.
You don't need a credit card to buy stuff ofg the Internet. There are other non-age related ways. Such as gift cards, Internet based gift certificates, etc.
For example, I believe it was 1999 when PlanetAll gave me an Amazon.com online gift certificate for like $10. No catch either.
And why do people not see that by restricting the sale to minors returns control to the parents, who's job it is to determine which values they want to pass on to their kids anyway? If the parent wants li'l Johny to have GTA3 then they can go buy it for him. But last time I checked children's "rights" where pretty much restricted anyway (with a few exceptions). That's why these things are rated "Adult" or "Mature", because they are NOT appropriate for minors.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
...
Actually, a single elipsis really isnt long enough to contain the sarcasm and bitterness this idea engenders.
but I'm too lazy to make more.
--
Whereof one cannot speak,
thereof one must remain silent.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
What's that dad? Can't come to the mall with me to get $new_game? No, don't bother next weekend, I'll just download it.
If you don't want people to restrict your game to over 18s, try toning down the over-the-top violence and sexuality, although that requires some decent game design which is where most big develoeprs fail.
I don't like the creators of games to have to "censor" themselves. I can see why some people want to protect their 8 year olds from some violent games, but a 17 year old?
I want the game(movie/musicvideo/book/e.t.c.) as the creator intended it to look, I don't want it to be censored just so it fit in some stupid legislation!
It's not a question about skill on the game-designers behalf, it's a question about freedom for him to include what he thinks makes the game better.
With such legislation the result will be that some games have to take away content that would have enrichened the gamers experience just because they want to reach a wider audience, I see no winner in that. I know I, as a gamer, would be a loser in it.
What kind of crime can one enact with a video game, exactly? Are they afraid the kids will sharpen the edges of the install cds and slash throats? Beat their girlfirend with a heavy player's guide? Or are they afraid that the use of the games will train the kids in the pressing buttons in a predefined order skills that are so necessary for the successful terrorist, or, worse, stenographer?
Seriously, though, it can't be the implicit encouragement of the use of violence to solve problems presented in many games. If that were the case, minors would have been banned from watching professional sports long, long ago.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
But in Australia video games are given a rating (M15 / 18) just like movies. They are rated in the same view as movies by the same relevant government body. Now I'm not sure how well this is enforced but I can't see the local Kmart handing over a copy of Vice City to a twelve year old. There are huge fines for the store owner for violating this law.
Now my question is isn't this the same kind of thing? It's just not healthy for minors to be exposed to some of the content on these games. They simply don't have the life experience to mentally digest what they see. Now I love gaming as much as the next guy but even I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. And if it isn't enforced with hugh penalites then there is no point in having the law in the first place.
consists of two problems:
- is it okay to ban mature content for immature people: who decides why someone/something is mature/immature?
- is it reasonable, to make a law, that can't be enforced at all (broadband internet copies of games e.g.)? Is something more moral, when you can't fight it, don't you always have to fight immoral/bad/injust situations, even if it doesn't have a effect?
I don't know either...
Why does every attempt to keep our children from becoming gun-toting, violent wolfpacks gain a instant shouting down from the Slashies? It's probably because most of them will no longer be able to buy Doom3 in DC, isn't it.
There's a big difference between laws that curtail free speech and remove rights from people and laws that protect the citizens from themselves.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
You got those thousands of years old ideas from us Europeans - filtered, of course, through the narrow puritan mind, which probably explains the false dichotomy/black and white-mentality of some Americans.
My parents, however, were sensible and knew I was mature enough to handle these 'violent' games and that I wouldn't go out and stab the next kid that touched my new shiny bike.
However, not all kids are mature enough to handle it, and not all parents are sensible enough to make the right decision for their child.
Point is, you can never completely enforce it, it comes down to the parents in the end.
I keep seeing stories on the net about people who have very little going for them, and still manage to get raped by $big_corp in the courtrooms. There was that one fat kid who put his handle in the blaster... the 83 year old who was killed by the RIAA... I mean... come on! this crap is really bugging me.
when will it all end? Will it end when we finally lose freedom of expression online, and the net is used exclusively by the governments of the world, and by businesses... someone pulled the plug on the net, and a lot of the recreational value is draining fast.[/RANT]
Ehta nyeh IBM, ehta Macintosh!
Funny how Washington DC also has the strictest gun control in the nation - no ownership or carry of handguns, longarms must be stored disassembled in your home. There are some pretty crummy urban areas nearby in Virginia, but crime is much lower there. Virginia is very much a right-to-carry state, with a reasonable process to obtain a concealed-carry license, and an open carry option.
Games can be rated in two ways - there's the voluntary ELSPA/PEGI code, and the statutory BBFC code (the same as is used for movies). If a game contains subject matter that falls into the BBFC's purview ('realistic' violence, sex, language) then it has by law to go through BBFC certification, and selling a game to someone younger than the age rating (12, 15 or 18) is an offence, just as it would be to sell an 18-rated film to a 14-year-old.
While I've got no doubt that there are shops that couldn't give a toss about checking buyers' ages, the major chains do, because they know they'll not only get fined if caught, but they'll get some serious bad publicity from the tabloids. For the most part, the system puts control back in the hands of the parents, where it should be. If little Timmy wants to play San Andreas and Dad's fine with that, then Dad's the one who has to buy it for him. If Dad's not fine with that, then little Timmy's out of luck. (Until he borrows a copy from a mate whose parents did let him play it, but that's a whole different matter...)
It's not censorship, because I can't think of an example where a game company was ordered by the BBFC to cut something from a game (and the BBFC is no longer the draconian nightmare it used to be - films that would in the past have been an 18, heavily cut, or even banned, are now routinely given a 15 rating). It's just a way of pointing out that some things aren't meant for kids, however much disposable income they may have. If the parents disagree with the ratings and are happy to let their kids play the games and watch the DVDs, they can do that.
IMO the US is going down an increasingly authoritarian road, but (to my surprise) I don't see this as a step along it.
You must think in Russian.
There's a big difference between laws that curtail free speech and remove rights from people and laws that protect the citizens from themselves.
.. and what is that difference?
Law protecting me from reading an unflattering description of the President? Well that's just protecting me from myself! I don't want to be angry at the President, do I? No, that would be bad. So how about if you "protect me from myself" instead of my facing the world?
I wondered if the government sponsored war video games will come under this....
I very much doubt it.
You can't cut someone up with an axe but hey, you can shoot as many brown people as you want.
The banning of video game sales to minors is pretty dumb. The research reports i have read states that it does not make minors more violent. I understand banning the sale of cigarettes to minors, because we are very sure it is harmful. But banning because you have a "gut" feeling it might make people violent is just a scapegoat for the real problem. Social issues etc.
Welcome to America, Censor capital of the Western world: Now Just One step behind China!
I don't mean this as a troll (really), but I never understood the fuss over preventing sales of violent video games to minors.
All it does is provide a tool to parents enabling them to throttle the sort of world their child is exposed to. Whether or not you agree that a parent should do this, it's not your decision on the matter. It's the right of that parent to control what their kid has access to.
If a parent wants their kid to have access to that stuff, they just need to be present when the sale happens.
This isn't the government saying what a kid can or can't do, it's only the government helping parents have better control over what their kids can and can't do. It's fundamentally like parental controls on your TV. You want your kid watching the PlayBoy channel, don't lock it. You want your kid playing San Andreas, buy it for him/her.
Enter typical diatribe about "but Billy will just go to Jimmy's house to play it" or "but Susie will just get Janie (/Janie's parents) to buy it for her." Guess what, Billy and Susie aren't allowed over to Jimmy and Janie's house once I (overprotective parent) find out about it.
Another diatribe I hear on this matter is, "It's fantasy, kids are capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality." First, not all kids are capable of making this distinction. Frankly, not all adults are capable of making this distinction. If my kid can't, I don't want him or her having access to this stuff. Second, even if my kid is capable of making this distinction, it still presents certain things as acceptable, things like beating hookers, shooting random people on the street, or even just stealing cars. Ok, so as a rational adult you can recognize that these are things which are not valid courses of action. You have a fundamental upbringing that tells you as much though.
Every time the subject of morality comes up on Slashdot (typically someone imposing their morality on someone else), people come out of the woodwork declaring that morality is all just relative. It's environmental. There's no absolute goods, no absolute bads. Please understand what the inevitable conclusion from this is: a child's environment shapes what that child's perception of acceptable behavior is.
Video games like San Andreas glorify a lifestyle that's not one I want my kids growing up believing is an acceptable life path. Whether or not you believe it, psychologists (folks with degrees on this stuff) understand that a growing child is impressionable. Things that are presented as acceptable to them are accepted as acceptable or perhaps even appropriate to them.
Maybe some kids would still turn into serial killers when they grow up, even having grown up in a totally sterile environment. Maybe some kids can consume all of the corruption society can throw at them, and still turn into a nun/priest when they grow up. These children are the exception. I, as a parent, have the right to observe my child's reactions to his or her environment, and tailor the environment my child is exposed to in order that he or she grows up to be a productive member of society, and not the kind of kid who smokes / does drugs / carjacks people. This only enables me to do that to a higher degree. I'm not telling you how to raise your child, buy your child all the corruption you can if that's the decision you make, just let me have control over what sort of corruption my kid gets.
In the end, the only people here who lose any freedom are the under-18 crowd whose parents don't want them having access to this sort of content. This isn't like alcohol where it's illegal to give it to a minor even after purchase, it's just illegal to sell it to a minor.
This doesn't block anyone's right to free speech. It just filters people's (lack of a) right to direct their free speech at minors through those minors' parents.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
A lot of people seem to be drawing parallels between mature video games and pornography and cigarettes and so on here. Surely a more obvious parallels would be the film industry. Children, in theory, aren't allowed in to adult films, and they're not allowed to buy adult videos. It just seems to make perfect sense to do the same thing with video games, rather than the over-the-top Australian "ban all mature video games completely" model we've got down here.
sorry, no chilling effect to be seen, there is a rating system for a reason.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
In the uk we have age ratings on all games, and legal ratings too.
The legal ones only are either OVER 18, or ANYONE, and the other ones are rather like what it sounds like you have, a reccomendation about what age range should play the game.
Im guessing a mature game can still be sold to anyone, so do you have any age limits on the games at all?
Tbh no one under.... 18 should be playing games like manhunt, and simular things.
In the uk our 18 rating is LAW and when selling, the seller should check id of who evers buying the game, sadly however, this never seems to work.
We have had a spite of killings by kids supposidly doing "what they saw in the game" however, i and most people belive this is just an excuse.
However, it does make rise to the question of how a 15yr old was playing a 18 rated game.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
I'm shocked that a lot of people here seem to think it's okay to sell violent games to children. A lot of games are extremely violent and offensive, and reward indiscriminant violence.
Surely people agree that the same type of ratings should be applied to video games as are applied to videos/films?
In the UK we have the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ . If it decides a film/video/game is only suitable for people over a certain age, then it is illegal for a shop to sell it to a person below that age. Other countries have similar systems. There's also a pan-European organisation, http://www.pegi.info/, although I don't think it's descisions are legally enforcable.
... it's the person playing it. The environment in which the child grows up (parenting, friends, etc.) defines who that child is and much more importantly, how that child shall react to different media content socially rated as "mature" or "adult".
I'm 14, play 18-rated games and watch porn. Do I go around on the streets killing people, drinking and dealing in and consuming inhaled death spells? I do none of these. Do I go around raping girls? I certainly do not. And why is this? Why do I not do as in the films I watch and become a serial killer/rapist, as the government experts so vehemently claim I should?
It is because when I have vilence to unleash, I play a violent game. When I feel like having fun, I watch a horror film. When I have sexual urges, I masturbate while visualising pornographic material.
The problem is in the attitude of the child as far as these different issues are concerned. An easily influencable child shall think killing, drinking and smoking is cool, all this because these kind of things are much too stylised when they are portrayed in films and games. As for porn, well if the male child is too naïve, he shall beleive women are really in such a submissive position, and as such he shall have a lower image of women. But porn can also be a good thing I beleive, particularly because sexually frustrated teenagers can unleash their seuxal desired on their right hand and not traumatise a girl for the rest of her life.
My two cents anyway ...
The Australian film authority refuses to classify games that it would give an "r" rating. So games like theif, gta etc are not released until the game maker promises to edit out the dirty bits. Thief is still banned here, but I think amongst other things Rockstar took the hookers out of gta3 and vc. It might seem like a horrible thing: but it doesn't really matter. I had the American "uncut" version of gta3 when i was 13! It isn't censorship, It's giving control to parents.
If you order by credit card from http://www.secret.net.au/ they demand your DOB.. weird if all you are buying is a new hard drive..
Just reading random posts....
we all KNOW that id cards are coming, so lets just agree on that for a second.
If they exist, people will carry them with them (maybe even make it law)....
If the card knew your age...
Why not have the GAME ask for a code on your card (or read it via some reader). It could then do something funky, or go online (xbox and ps2 can already) and check if your old enough to try the game your trying to play.
Ok, you COULD hack it, copy cards etc, but this would be along the same lines as copying passports, and not many 12yr olds want to go to THAT limit of breaking the law, just to play a game. Add in some finger print reconision (should exist pretty securly by then too) and you have a full prove system
means also that shop owners no longer get blamed for selling a game to person x, who passed to on to person y, who happened to be 12.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Ok wait wait...
Im missing something here? I don't live in the US so im going to assume that if a gun/hunting/knife shop sells weapons to a minor or some other store sells say fireworks or dangerous chemicals or even just porn to a minor then they loose their license and get fines of over $10,000 right? In fact I know thats right because if it wasn't that would make these people fucking retards?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Enforcing a rating scheme is better than the alternative. Most people seem to agree that there are games that kids shouldn't play -- some games are violent, some have drug references, some have sexual content. I think that having a rating scheme and then actually enforcing those ratings, in much the same way that equivalent laws regarding the sale of tobacco products are enforced, is a sensible idea.
At the moment, in most areas, all games are allowed to be sold to kids. This leads to activist groups loudly calling for a blanket ban on mature content every time little Johnny picks up a copy of GTA. Sure, in a perfect world, little Johnny's parents would be watching him and would point him at Mario Karts or something, but because little Johnny's parents are probably the same people who let their kids scream the place down in restaurants, that's not going to happen.
Johnny's parents want it not to be their problem, and because there are so many parents like that, legislators are inclined to agree with them. That either makes it the problem of the people selling the game or the people writing the game. I reckon the consequences of forcibly imposing G-rating standards on the games industry would be worse than the consequences of making game retailers look at ID before selling mature-rated games.
Sure, not all retailers will check IDs, just like not all tobacconists check IDs. The point is that when little Johnny comes home from EB with the latest instalment of GTA or whatever, it's the EB store that cops the butt-kicking and not the game developers (who after all didn't have little Johnny in mind when they wrote the thing). If you want fun games, let the game developers get on with designing them without a committee of wowsers hanging over their shoulders checking pixellated necklines.
It is a woman's prerogative to change other people's minds.
They already trampled over polticial speech with the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act. You really thought they'd stop there? Not to mention the FCC.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I say we ban the sale of *all* videogames to people under 25. That way, Johnny's soccer coaching mom will have to actually GO WITH HIM and LOOK at the game he is wanting to buy.
Screw the rest of us. I mean, if we want to engage in sickening antisocial activities like playing GTA or Katamari Damarcy, we should be the ones that have to show ID and promise not to kill anyone. Pinky swear too.
Now Johnny's mom can feel safe to plop him in front of the TV and he'll get all the proper morals he'll need. No parenting required! Just add food/water!
It's utopia!
Sorry, I'm just so sick of this topic anymore. It's not slashdots fault for bringing it up. It's America for going to ridiculous lengths 'for the children.' It's a *game* people. Grow up about it.
-- I have fans? Wow.
I'm a Violent Gamer who likes playing Violent Video Games. After years of playing they have increased my bloodlust by a scientifically proven 1960%. And now you want to take my Violent Video Games away from me? I'LL KILL YOU ALL!!! ... well, maybe after just *one* more round of half life... I'll get back to you.
... how about banning the sale of guns to idiots/psychopaths/anyone? I'm sure there's a more tangible correlation between guns + murder than computer games and murder.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
but in my experience degredation costs extra.
Banning manure video game sales to minors is great, but why not ban manure video games completely? Let's get all the stinkers off the shelves!
I'm shockey that you seem to think children are stupid little fuckers, which should be protected from sex, violence, drugs, and alternative ideologies, because that will kill them, or warp beyond recognition.
:).
:).
But how, tell me how little Johny could grow into someone smart and healthy, when you wish to cut him off from real life? You can only succeed in breeding real little fuckers, or mindless drones, good citizens who go into church and sign up to DMCA and Patriot Act
I've used to be a child. I remember we were interested in porn, violence and gore quite extensively. Bad kids. No fun for you anymore
I mean, we restrict R rated movies to adults. In Baltimore, they won't let you see an R rated movie unless your 17.
I dunno, call me crazy but not letting a seven year old by grand theft auto, pick up hoes, burn people with a flame thrower and stab a policeman to death sounds like a good thing to me.
The fact it's 90%+ Democrat.
Any kid with a wallet sized portrait of Grant is either gainfully employed, has the approval of their parents, or is stealing from parents doing their best wolf impressions. In non of those cases does the game make the difference in that kids life. All it does is burden small businesses, tax the market, reduce availability, and steal time from parents who can trust their kids. I don't see how taking a penny from the happiness tray of a few hundred thousand people for what amounts to a PR campaign for a few moralizing politicians is anything but the kind of pandering that leads people to despise politicians. Guess what, if a kid can't buy it, I assure you, they can download it. They might have to resort to sneakernet, it might cost them a buck, or a baseball card, but the stated end of such a law is absolutely doomed to fail spectacularly.
But yay big, bloated, invasive and ineffective government.
If you don't agree with their definition, you can still go out and buy the game for your kid.
Jan
I'll admit. When I play Grand Theft Auto (3, VC, SA, all of them apply), there are a lot of jokes I find a little tasteless at times. But it was the developers decision to put them in there. Sure, I don't like all of the jokes, but somebody does. It was Rockstar's idea to put them in and that's their choice. They felt it improved the GTA experience.
But then I ask myself a question. Who decided that at 18, you're magically mature enough to play these games, anyway? I know 14 year olds who are mature enough to play any violent game, yet I also know 20-something year old immature idiots who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a piece of string. The ability to decipher the difference between fantasy and reality is something that can't be checked on a card or with age. But to punish the vast majority because of the pre-existing idiocy of the few is wrong. (It's in my own opinion that anyone who would emulate an act of violence in a video game would just have easily been affected by a movie, magazine, or, hell, the evening news these days)
Besides, it's not like there isn't a million easy ways to get around any such legislation. Like say, an uninformed parent buying the game for you. (And here's a bit of a paradox: A parent who would actually go so far to check what his or her kid is playing is more likely to be a more involved parent and would probably have a better grip on reality anyway. Though that may be a bit too much of a generalization.)
As good of a thing as this Bill sounds to be, the reality is that you cannot legislate morality, especially on items that are used in the privacy of someones home.
Lets say this bill does pass, what is to stop the oler brother/sister/parent from buying the game for the child? Or as previously stated, from buying it from the Internet?
There will always be parents/guardians that could give a rats ass about how their childen are raised or what they see and do. That is life... unfortunately.
Cities and states, via their elected representatives, already prohibit selling porn, alcohol, weapons, and tobacco to children. If they decide that "mature" games pose a similar threat, then they're within their rights to do so.
Those who disagree are also within their rights to rant, without effect, here. If they were interested more in actual change and less in ideological posturing, they might become active in political and legal efforts to convince the DC government to act otherwise.
And, remember, the notion that this won't stop kids from buying games is besides the point. All laws are violated.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps you should take a psychology course or two. Why do you suppose young men kill young women?
It's for pleasure. It's a sensual experience like rape. Remember the serial killer Ted Bundy? Do you know what he claimed set him off? I'll give you a huge hint: porn.
Seeing violence on TV has not been substantially linked to actual violence - especially not serial violence - but sexual awakening before one is ready can create all kinds of sexual deviance - including a homocidal fetish. This is much worse, and only one of the reasons why people should already have a good understanding of who they are before they do something like look at porn.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
>> Having worked in call centers as an occupation, I would say these degrade both men and women alike - should call centers be banned for this reason too?
Sure, if you can convince enough people to agree with you.
That's how democracy works, not by some elite deciding what is "right" but by the majority deciding what they want.
Slashdot's audience typically demands the "correct" answer, the "right" answer, the response that accords with the "facts". The typical rant, on any subject from Linux to TV shows, begins with the assumption that the poster is "right" and everyone else is wrong, and therefore, stupid. That's a waste of time and indicative of the immaturity of its audience. Real life isn't an engineering exercise.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
...you seem to have been spared the horror of Daikatana. God only knows the train-wreck of a life you'd be leading now if you got your hands on that one. Now pardon me while I go kick my dog.
There is absolutely no reason why a ten year old should be playing a game where one has sex with prostitutes, beats up people with ball bats, stereotypes homosexuals, and has to commit random killing to rack up points. My son isn't allowed to play these games, but his cousin is allowed. His cousin is eleven and bragged about knowing the method to have sex with girls in his vehicle. Nice. While my son is being considered for an advanced math class in his school or possibly skipping a grade, his cousin has already failed one grade and is having problems with his school work. Parents should be vigilant and work with their kids instead of hoping the government will pass laws that keep them from having to be a parent. But at the same time there is no reason a minor should be playing GTA. And before DeathPooky talks about chilling effects, what is more chilling: your kid not being able to purchase a mature video game, or your kid having the mouth of some some degenerate and manners to match? Grow up.
It sounds like a damn good idea to me, games with graphic violence and sexual scenes of a explicit nature shouln't be sold to minors.
Most other countries have copied the laws which regard the sale of videos and movies to computer games, it doesn't stop the problem but it does mean that a 12 yearold can't walk in and buy something like Vampire Bloodlines (one of my favorite games), which depicts graphic acts of violence against humans and includes sexual themes including homosexual themes, and also has a manditory story line which involves snuff movies.
Don't get me wrong I don't like censorship, and I don't think the state should involve itself in parenting, but this is neither. The state is giving parents power to decide what there kids can buy instead of leaving the power purely in the hands of the shop which probably only cares about sellig the game.
Because half the DC gang members are at home playing counterstrike in their mom's basement.
I live in DC, and really can't make myself get worked up oever this. Do you really want 15 year olds to buy M rated games? Any reputible chain stores already have rules in place preventing this. There aren't hardly any mom and pop type video game stores in the city anyway - it's too expensive. Sure you can go get a game from a pawn shop - but you will never be able to prevent that anyway - usually the pawn owners don't speak english here anyway.
If you want to get all riled up on something on behalf of the District, how about the fact that we *have no voting representation in Congress*. Poll after poll shows that the majority of americans dosen't know this. We pay taxes to the government just like anyone else, yet can't set our own budget, or have numerous other rights that ever other city in the country takes for granted.
Video game makers had their chance. It didn't work. Now, I'm not saying it's entirely their fault - parents are also to blame. Parents like my mom, who let my 14-year-old brother have San Andreas then just about fainted when I called her in to watch him play and she saw what was in it. Of course, then she was like "Well, he's already played half the game, I guess the other half won't matter."
Way too many parents let their kid have any video game on the shelf, without even considering that it might not have been made for children. But at the same time, I don't think video game makers have exactly worked real hard to get the word out and make it obvious to parents that the "M" really isn't for "Must-play." I don't think it's great that the government is stepping in, but I also think that if the industry had been more effective at doing it themselves this wouldn't be a problem.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
I don't understand why people want to prevent sales to minors. I mean, it could be a good thing, but if you are a parent and don't pay attention to what your kids are doing, then you are a moron anyway and shouldn't be a parent.
I think they should ban nethack on the first place. Killing random monsters just for grabbing their magic items is certainly a felony and eating them is disgusting as well.
There you are, staring at me again.
I think one big problem with the proposed law is that (based on the details from the article) the game's ESRB rating is apparently used to determine its legality for being sold to minors.
But since the ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board) is a self-governing organization of game developers, what's to stop them from making a gradual shift in their rating standards to evade the law and sell more games?
... how about banning the sale of guns to idiots/psychopaths/anyone? I'm sure there's a more tangible correlation between guns + murder than computer games and murder.
Dammit, I have mod points, but I can't let this slide..
How much of an increase in violent crime do you need to see in the UK or Australia before it dawns on you that:
A) Banning guns is a very, very bad idea
and
B) It's impossible
And you don't want to ban guns. You want to hire people with guns to do it for you.
Ironic, no?
It's because the average Wal-Mart customer tends to be rather conservative, or live in communities which are. And while I know several conservative, even Christian, Wal-Mart customers who own dildoes, none of them really wants to broadcast to their friends, family, neighbors and church social groups that they've finally gotten their twelve-inch vibrating jelly dildo out of layaway, and are picking up extra D-cells and anal lube to go with it.
If people won't buy the item there, or if carrying the item will drive away more customers than it creates, then Wal-Mart won't carry it. This is why they no longer carry handguns--because it creates an image problem and does not create enough customers. It's also the same reason that Wal-Mart does not carry sex toys.
This is called critical thinking, and is something I wonder if you learned out of school =).
people do understand the difference between banning a game/music/art etc and restricting it. why is bad that its a little harder for a 12 year old to get the game?? i understand it will still happen but for the parents who wish to stay informed and involved at least they have a little help at the store
It's a WalMart kind of stores? Or maybe an state?
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
As a DC resident, I'd like to point out that most of our problems follow from our lack of representation in congress. Although DC population exceeds that of Wyoming, we have no senators or representatives.
Also, since DC is not a state (no governor), many DC laws are dictated by congress, not the city council.
I don't see banning the sale of mature video games to minors as any kind of big deal. I think most people are concerned about the possible huge penalty associated with these bans. It's just unreasonable that you can lose your license for selling a mature game to a minor. Do movie theaters lose their license for selling R-rated tickets to minors? A fine would be much more appropriate, but not anything near $10,000. That's just ludicrous. What's the fine for selling alcohol or tobaco to minors?
The "chilling effects" that people always talk about are the day when selling a mature game to a minor will get you in more trouble than rape or murder. I hope those people are just being paranoid...
It is really about liability. The idea that kids will be better off not playing violent video games is only a side-effect.
If little Timmy goes and kills his friend with a shovel because he saw it in a game he played, a game that he wasn't old enough to be playing, then its not the game company's fault, its the parent's fault for not policing what he is doing and/or whoever's fault who got him the game in the first place. Thus, people are forced to actually parent their children at least for the sake of being right in the eyes of the law.
I praise it, and hope it goes through for all states, because then game companies don't have to waste money defending themselves on stupid court cases that the parents don't want to take responsibility for, when it is in fact their fault. Then the game companies can continue to supply us with good games at a price that hasn't changed in 15 years.
If the kids can't buy them then they'll just download it. The big loosers here arn't the kids, they'll still have their fun. It isn't civil liberties.
The big loosers will be the MBA types and the politicians because they'll lose sales of the PC games and still not have found a solution to all that violance.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Tell me how you came to that conclusion.
FRA: STFU GTFO
How much of an increase in violent crime do you need to see in the UK or Australia before it dawns on you that:
A) Banning guns is a very, very bad idea
Very bad example. Here's why. The murder rate in the United States is still four times higher than it is in either the UK or Australia, despite a higher overall violent crime rate in those countries. In other words, there is more violent crime in the UK and Australia, but less murder. Why do you think this is?
It's because of cases like this. Cases that would be a simple mugging in other countries pretty frequently turn into murders here with easy access to deadly weapons. This woman - and countless others like her every year - simply would not be dead today if these stupid kids (and the stupid adults supposedly supervising them) did not have access to such weapons. Your position is directly supporting the murder of people like Nicole Dufresne.
B) It's impossible
Bullshit. Go to Japan and try to buy a gun. Seriously. If you think gun control doesn't work, then you just don't have a very well-developed world view. It does work and it has been working in various countries for many years. In fact, I just did a quick Google search on gun murder in Japan and quickly came up with some numbers from 1996: 9,390 gun murders in the US vs. 15 in Japan. Japan's murder rate has not increased appreciably since then - they have around 1,300 total per year (about 1/8 the number of gun murders alone in this country) with a population about half that of the United States.
I would say banning guns would have a far greater effect on reducing the murder rate than banning violent video game sales to minors. But that does not mean I am against such a ban. I don't see why it has to be either/or. There is no reason, for example, that a 12 year old kid should be playing a game like Manhunt. No justifiable reason at all. I would argue that there's no reason for anybody to play that game, but if adults want to play it, that's up to them. Kids, though - I mean adults need to step in and say "no". Yes, it's the parents' responsibility, but a lot of people seem to use that fact as some sort of rationale for abdicating societal responsibility. It is not, for example, legal for 12 year olds to commit murder or even to drive a car simply because it's their parents' responsibility to make sure that they don't. There is still a law saying they cannot do it, as there should be.
Handguns should be illegal. M-rated game sales to minors should be illegal. End of story. This is not a question of "my rights online", it's a question of living in a free and safe society that does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings or the sale of adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it.
I realize Slashdot has more than a bit of a libertarian slant, but there is a difference between being a libertarian and being an anarchist. There are plenty of countries in the world that are freer than we are in the United States but nevertheless have successfully implemented these perfectly reasonable regulations regarding public safety.
...many companies will think long and hard about putting any sort of adult content in a high profile title, for fear of losing sales. Look at the proliferation of watered down films in the movie industry.
Every single time that this has been tried, the law has been declared unconstitutional. What makes this any different?
The Washington Post article says: "District political, religious and community leaders gathered at a Southeast Washington church yesterday to support a proposed ban on the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors. They summed up their objections in a word: poison." Well, I think US kids are getting a much worst "violence poison" everyday: witnessing how their government (precicely in DC!) bombs the world everyday...
The trouble with laws like this is that by being enforced arbitrarily, they amount to extortion... and will be used to destroy small retailers.
Here is how it works: Every store makes mistakes. There is no doubt about it. No-one is perfect. At some time, someone is going to screw up and sell a game to a minor.
So given that ALL stores violate the law, this is what happens: Once the law is passed, the politicians need to crack down on someone to show they are tough. They could crack down on the electronics superstore mega-chain, except the mega-chain store has multi-million dollar legal teams ready to do battle in court on a moments notice, and they also probably donate generously to the people in office, and if they were only fined money, they can pay the $10,000 out of their billions of dollars with no problem.
However, the local neighborhood video game store, probably doesn't have a lawyer, and is probably just scraping by (and a $10,000 fine could put them out of buisness, even if they don't lose their licence). They are going to be the victims of the crackdown, and they will be driven out of buisness.
And then, that doesn't even account for political extortion. Mr. McCraken is looking for donations and endorsements for his relection. It would be a shame if some government investigators came into your store and shut you down. Perhaps you could help Mr. McCracken's campaign, and he could make sure that there is not any trouble with investigators... understand?
The law will help huge mega-corporations and crooked polititions... it won't stop kids from getting violent videogames (they will just have a clueless adult buy it for them)... and when all said and done the same "want-to-save-you-from-yourself" rightious liberals who supported the law will be complaining how the "evil corporations" drove the independent stores out of buisness (and ignoring the fact that their beloved government regulation is what did it)... and the rightious "we-must-protect-our-morality" conservatives will be complaining about oppressive government regulation (ignoring the fact that they LOVE government regulation, so long as it involves enforcing their "values" on others).
So, using your logic, parents have no right to tell their child to do anything.
And the child is not having beliefs forced on him, he is being forced to behave a certain way. At no point is he forced to believe a certain way.
Believe it or not, beliefs and actions are two different things.
I take responsibility for my kids and I think every other parent should do so. I wouldn't want anybody to sell games to my kids that have the M rating. Right now, the law makes sure kids can't go into an adult bookstore and buy stuff either. The M rated games can be very influential to minors and desensitize them to violence long before they can adequately comprehend that their personalities are changing for the worse.
Now, I grew up with "violent" games in the 80's. And I'm sure I've been influenced by the level of violence in them. But it took quite an imagination to correlate the violent actions in the games to real life actions. Today's graphics and gameplay provide near matching scenerios. Kids get the "Play the game, try it for real" ideas. However, I still keep a large golden arrow around in case I run across a dragonduck when duty calls me to find the chalice.
Comrade, we have a new plan to reduce crime!
3 &Submit1=Request+Opinion
p &caseno=02-2204A.PDF
How?
We make everything a crime!
I am personally uncomfortable with violent video games.I would understand boycotts and sit-ins of places that pander them.
I am even more uncomfortable with censorship of violent video games.
So far this is just talk.
Some politicians had a meeting with some constituents - nothing has passed yet.
The prime directive prohibits this sort of regulation:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
RTFA - read the first amendment
A similar ordinance in Indianapolis was found unconstitutional.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=00&num=364
American Amusement v Kendrick
Posner, Circuit Judge.
The manufacturers of video games and their trade association seek to enjoin, as a violation of freedom of expression, the enforcement of an Indianapolis ordinance that seeks to limit the access of minors to video games that depict violence. No doubt the City would concede this point if the question were whether to forbid children to read without the presence of an adult the Odyssey, with its graphic descriptions of Odysseus's grinding out the eye of Polyphemus with a heated, sharpened stake, killing the suitors, and hanging the treacherous maidservants; or The Divine Comedy with its graphic descriptions of the tortures of the damned; or War and Peace with its graphic descriptions of execution by firing squad, death in childbirth, and death from war wounds. Or if the question were whether to ban the stories of Edgar Allen Poe, or the famous horror movies made from the classic novels of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Frankenstein) and Bram Stoker (Dracula). Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low.
On the other hand, Posner upheld a law banning anonymous political speech such as "vote for smith."
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showo
The District of Columbia has a penchant for making symbolic laws that don't do anything but inconvience law-abiding citizens, and sometimes cause harm.
For no one that lives around here, DC is very small and surrounded by Maryland and Virginia. The subway system extends into both other states. Local laws limiting purchases have a very limited effect.
Look at the handgun regulations. Neither Maryland or Virginia require licenses to purchase or own handguns, and all stores will readily sell to DC residents. All handgun laws have done in DC is to keep law-abiding citzens from owning them, the criminals have easy access.
These laws will do the same thing. Drive a few blocks into Maryland and get them there, or take the metro 2-3 stops south to Pentagon City or Crystal City malls and shop there, too.
I'm almost done with this here because it's clearly off-topic. However, the links you provided prove my point, not yours.
Nicole Dufresne would probably still be alive if she had been armed and knew how to defend herself. The story you linked is completely devoid of details, so I can't say that with certainty. What I did get from the story was that gun laws clearly don't work. It was "illegal" for her under-age assassin to have a gun.
Guns are used more often in this country to prevent death than to cause it.
Good intentions != good results. You can double the equation when you interject feckless government.
In addition, you linked to a page that shows that the U.S. is 24th on the list of countries, by murder rate. What the page doesn't show, and you can't address, is what guns have to do with that.
Don't sweat it. If I happen upon you being mugged at gun point on the street, you can rest assured that I'll be armed and take the violent bastard down to save your silly ass.
Don't worry, DC can't even do a good job with the ban laws they currently have (guns, etc). What makes you think that adding another item to ban will be a success this time?
Here is what you will NOT find. You will NOT find an example of a place where gun crime was out of control, people were getting killed left and right (like in south Chicago) and then guns were banned and the crime rate went down. Most of Europe, Japan, and other countries have lower murder rates than the US and stricter gun laws. However, correlation does not equal causality. The crime rates were lower even before the tough gun laws due to a more homogenous population and other factors. There are numerous US cities that have tough gun laws that are useless. No Chicago murders are prevented by the outlawing of guns within the city. Even if they were banned throughout the entire country, it's not as if guns can't be made in a metals workshop. Guns aren't the problem, it's the culture. Until American society become more polite somehow, murders will remain common no matter what people like Sarah Brady are able to accomplish.
The church and Christians as a whole still have a influence on the law/public perception. As you point out, sex is shunned in favor of violence. It's because of the church. It was the church and the Christians who demonized sex to begin with. And they still have a huge amount of control on our society, even though a great deal of these people are much more relaxed than their predecossors. That is until they get in groups with people from their church. Then of course, it's a movement...AKA the religious right...the Republican right...whatever. I just wish they would go STFU and mind their own business. They never can though. That is part of their religion. Trying to enforce their beliefs upon the world and pass judgement upon those who don't share them.
The message is clear: DC does not want us to buy video games but to copy and download them.
Is it illegal for a city or state to remove rights from a group of people? Or do people of that age not count as people as therefore can have any rights removed as such?
In other words, let the parents do it.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
i see nothing but flamebait throughout most of these replies, but they are being marked "Interesting". If i post a dissenting view it will probably be marked FLAMEBAIT. I don't think Violent Video games or Pr0n should be sould to minors, it really CAN mess a kid up. Also, for those who say "whaa whaaa itd be an invasion of a CHILD's privacy to snoop and see if they are downloading violent video games" that's bullshit. Kids don't have rights, they are not adults. When they can vote, they are old enough to make their own decisions, until then the parents need to be parents and stop being held hostage by all the hippy liberals that are morally perverted.
And then there was E
Look, I work in mental health with children, and I can tell you, its not the kids buying the games, its the parents. You have no idea how many parents buy GTA and the like for their kids. Then the parents ask me questions such as "is this game OK for my kid?" and "does this CD have foul language on it?".
What's wrong with kids these days, whats wrong with the games, the music, society ? the answer is one that no politician will give; its the adults. see, adults vote, so lets not put responsibility where it belongs, lets blame "schools", "games", T.V.", "terrorism", "music", but Oh lord, lets not blame the voters.
Problems with your kid? Hmm...do you: know the name of your kid's teacher? speak to this teacher every 9 weeks or so (at least), do you check your kids homework nightly? do you speak to your kids about drugs and safe sex? do you preview the music you buy for you child? Same with games? do you make an effort to meet your teen's friends or talk you their friends parents? do you ask you kid how their day was and how they are doing? are you your childs friend? (you shouldn't be, they have friends at school, they need YOU as their parent).
We need fewer laws in our society and more parents to step up to the plate!
But then I ask myself a question. Who decided that at 18, you're magically mature enough to play these games, anyway? I know 14 year olds who are mature enough to play any violent game, yet I also know 20-something year old immature idiots
At 18 you're considered an adult, and if the 14-year olds' guardian believes they're mature enough then they can purchase it for them.
The state isn't telling the parent how to raise their children. The state is saying that children cannot buy mature video games, the parents can buy it and let the kids play if they choose.
You just invented a new reason to pirate.
At least for the kids, and that's what matters here.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
It's not going to happen, Scooter. With the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment here in the states you should learn to deal with it.
As a parent you already have that option. This law merely gives you the option to take revenge on businesspeople when you fail in your duties. Goddamn I'm glad I live in somewhere thats not America.
This reminds me of THIS ARTICLE which is a piece of satire on Halo 2 and the whole killing instinct in humans...
It points out that violent crime has GONE DOWN since these games hit shelves.
We spend so much time in this society trying to repress human instinct... somebody compared this to restricting porn sales and they're right. You're not fighting a certain kind of entertainment. You're fighting human desire and physical urges. And boys are born wanting to hold a weapon and use it.
If you have a way of exercizing that instinct that doesn't harm anyone, then why not let them have it? It's almost petty not to.
I'm all for this. Now, they can stop blaming the video games for all the violence and take a look at whats really going on.
I caused millions of virtual deaths, jumped on countless enemy's heads, and manouvered countless falling blocks into lines before the age of 15. I, like many other rational people, refuse to believe that it was mere luck that I didn't become a mass murderer, jump on anyone's head, or spend my life dropping blocks so that they form straight lines...it was because I knew that that was what I did in games, and those rules did not apply to real life. If someone can't make this distinction, they have a serious mental illness. It's a basic component of not being crazy. You will never, ever see a child react to a death in a game as seriously as they do in real life; you will never see your kid running around eating dots and looking out for ghosts. Your tendency to want to be able to blame games for your potential future failures is not at all substantiated or rational.
Freedom of expression comes at a very, very high price in this country. The facilitation of your SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS is not worth losing a form of unregulated speech. If your child can get to and from a mall by him/herself, install a game, play it, and plot a spate of copycat crimes all without your noticing, then the problem here is not that the world hasn't been steamrolled into a moral whiteroom, shaped to perfectly fit your subjective beliefs. It's nice that you have certain principles about how your child ought to be raised, but honestly I think I speak for a great number of people when I say I would prefer it if you stopped trying to parent my children as well.
That's not the issue. You are promoting government regulation of speech. You have control over what sort of corruption your kid has. Ask what he's doing. Be involved, be aware. If you can't control what kind of video games your child plays without the government's help, then your kids are pretty much screwed. Stop trying to throw away MY freedom of expression in exchange for an opportunity to be less responsible for raising your own children.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
"Go to Japan and try to buy a gun"
Do you have any clue about how large the U.S. is compared with Japan?
Do you have any clue about how many guns already exist in the U.S.?
Do you have any clue about how pervasive guns are?
Step back, deep breath. You're all excited.
Go to podunk U.S.A. Every man woman and child will have a gun. I had 2 growing up.
Do you know how many crimes there are with weapons in those parts? Almost none.
How can that be? Well, perhaps the cities are attract and are a breeding ground for violent people? Maybe the right thing to do is when we get people who commit violent crimes we lock them up and throw away the key? These people are on the verge on being uncivilized. I would sterlize them as well to keep them from breeding, but some stupid bleeding heart will object and claim its racists....which itself racist, because it means these idiots think only certain protected groups commit crimes.
Anyway, another deep breathe, because you're all hurt and angry now.
The U.S. is currently pushing violent criminals, and the result is that our violent crime rates are going down.
So I think you're being whiny. There is no problem here. And when a problem crops us, we throw its sorry ass in jail and throw away the key.
Problem solved. Move along, idiot.
What most of these lawmakers and city/state administrators fail to realize is that watching or playing one of these violent video games does not make an otherwise peaceful or innocent teenager go out and commit violent crimes. This is just the same as outlawing black trenchcoats in school because of the Columbine situation. Wearing trenchcoats isn't going to make you murder your schoolmates.
Its called predisposition. There are lots of folks out there who can't honestly separate reality from fantasy. These are the folks you heard about a decade ago who went out and stabbed someone with a long sword after playing D&D for 45 hours straight. The people who commit violent crimes after playing games like Grand Theft Auto are the ones who were already predisposed to commit those crimes. They just needed some kind of catalyst or spark to get them going. These are the people who should be seeing psychiatrists. The game might give them the idea of what violent crimes to commit, but playing a video game isn't going to turn the Beaver into a killer.
Here's what needs to happen:
1. The problem children need to be identified early. These are the kids who are torturing small animals, play with fire, etc etc.
2. Parents need to educate their children on the difference between fantasy and reality.
3. Parents need to pay attention to what their children play and watch. I'm a father of two small children now, and my oldest one is just beginning to be old enough that I need to censor what she sees and hears.
I think the solution lies in the household, not in the government. While I don't think that a 12 year old boy should be buying GTA: San Andreas, I think that IF they did buy it, there's a much bigger problem at home, and that boy's parents need to be examined.
And they said zombies weren't real!
enough said.
Someday they'll build a board with a nail in it big enough to destroy them all.
Sex, in nearly every species on this earth, most definitely including humans, has the underlying motive of domination.
Funny, I always thought it had the underlying motivation of getting off. Or ultimately, generating offspring, though likely no animal but us consciously thinks of that. However, Slashdot is possibly the worst place ever to argue about sex.
Freedom: "I won't!"
I disagree, they can still make that very same game, it just has an 18+ sticker on it.
When people make a TV sitcom they are effectivly struggling with the same dilemma, you cant put a drug-crazed naked axe murderer in an afternoon kids TV show. This is perfectly normal, and nobody would suggest that you should be able to incldue hardcore sex in sesame street. So what's the difference here?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
...from simply buying their kids the games.
Unfortunately for all these watchdog groups, every parent gets to decide when and how much to warp their kids' little minds.
My kid turned eleven last year. She's been playing Bugs Bunny, Harry Potter and kid-specific crap for four years. She wanted something more challenging and maybe just a bit more grown up. We pulled Resident Evil and Oddworld from our old collection and they seem to suit her just fine.
I'm sure some parents would object but they don't get to decide what's best for my kid. Likewise, I may not approve of Cletus buying Grand Theft Auto for his five year old, but it's his business not mine. Until his kid kills my kid with his car imitating the game.
Then I kill Cletus for not monitoring his kid and and I go to jail and later it gets turned into a "Law and Order" episode which me and my new lesbian lover watch together.
Let the circle be unbroken...
Or is there a marked correlation between crime and the emergence of the two-income family??
It can't all be just the drug war...
It's about time. Any one who thinks a 6 year old should be able to play GTA is sick in the head. Don't think don't. Gamespot did a Interview with a bunch of kids on Old video games and guess what they all played GTA.
The ratings restrictions on movies are voluntary and done by member theaters. If a theater sells a ticket to an R-rated movie to a child, they're not subject to criminal penalties of $10,000 and the loss of their business license.
Can you really not see the difference between a voluntary system by a business organization and severe criminal penalties handed down by the government?
Then make sure kids only have as much money as they need to attend school and the approved activities, not to buy games you don't approve of at $50 each.
Um, its called parenting.
Not guns.
Think moving away from God in the home is a good idea? If you child was raised with morals (unlink the crappy parenting today) then it wouldnt be an issue.
"But YOU CANT SAY GOD IN SCHOOL". - this is the issue.
Take off the blinds.
I am more for restricting violence than sex. But, i think it all should be throttled back.
I hate watching TV and seeing someone's head blow off, then switching channels and seeing someone's breasts blurred out, or someone getting bleeped saying "shit".
Pretty Pictures!
I think you need to realize that, in the United States, a ban on guns will never work. If you do not like guns, then you can go ahead and stay away from guns. Things are not going to change any time soon, if ever at all.
Oh man.. there's got to be some sick f*ck out there who :
:
Wishes they were a murderer.
Wishes they had a gun.
Wishes they had a printer so they could print your post out.
Wishes they could afford to take a trip to wherever you're at right now.
Know why ?
So they could shoot 'your silly ass from' the street through the window and through your head whilst you watch some show on T.V. And then They'd stick the print-out of your comment to your chest, just for a hint of irony.
Yeah, you go and have a gun and know how to defend yourself - it's still not going to stop a bullet.
Now let's see them try that with
- a knife ( throw it, doesn't go through glass well. Stab ? They'll have to get close enough )
- a baseball bat ( ditto )
- my fists ( glass would probably cut them and they'd bleed to death *smirk*, ditto on the other )
You see - your entire point of view rests on the idea that you can shoot the other person before they can shoot you. I don't know the odds; I certainly don't know how much of a marksman you are, or how good your reflexes are. But I do know you first need to know you -are- going to be shot at, and detecting that, in and of itself, is the toughie.
Sure, you could just pull your gun and blast somebody's brains out (though if you're a good marksman, you'll aim for their leg, right? no need to outright kill if you can just immobilize) as soon as you feel remotely threatened. And in the U.S. you can probably get away with it. In most other countries you'll probably have used excessive force.
And that still leaves the gunman that you can't even see.
Put differently... given the choice of somebody having a gun, a knife, a bat, or only their fists - which would you rather have them wielding in a situation where they intend to kill you ?
Also, I'd like to see you corroborate the statement that guns more often prevent death than cause it, in the U.S.
That is to say.. some statistic where it shows that if a gun wasn't used to deter a particular crime, somebody WOULD have been killed.
Not 'may have been' or 'remotely, possibly, I dunno, I suppose it's possible'.
Otherwise we'd only have to go by the word of many people who, if for no other reason than legal and court reasons, claim "I believe he was going to kill me/him/her/them.", even if this can't be proven in any way.
I'm against guns outside of specialist forces. Sure, I know criminals will be able to get their guns illegally. I just take my chances with that.
I'm also not naive to think that there's any way the U.S. situation can be reversed within a reasonable amount of time. Certainly not with ever-heavier gun classifications having their prohibitions lifted (such as assault rifles. ever wonder why they're not called defense rifles? hmm)
So I'm pretty neutral as far as the U.S. situation goes, as long as the U.S. situation doesn't spread to other countries at the hand of the likes of the NRA.
I'm confused. Your argument is that if you go to someplace where you don't have connections, and where firearms are illegal, you won't be able to readily get your hands on a gun, and that makes anti-gun laws effective? This is a specious argument at best, and probably simply an unthought one. Or, of course, a troll. That actually seems very likely because usually only the most fervent idiots believe something like "devices whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings". More common is the arrogant belief that children necessarily "do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process" [adult material]. It depends on the children and the material, and no two situations are alike, no matter how dearly you want that to be true so you can apply a simple, narrow world view to all situations.
The fact is that I can go to Japan and rent an industrial space, put a lathe and a vertical mill in it, buy some steel, and make my own handguns. Making firearms is not really all that difficult, unless you're talking about high-powered, long-range, accurate rifles. Consider the fact that the Colt 1911 was first produced in 1911, and that you have better tools and materials available today, and you may understand what I'm trying to tell you.
The simple fact is that the more difficult you make it for criminals to get guns, the more those guns will be worth, and the more likely they are to be in the hands only of the most resourceful and/or successful criminals. You cannot eliminate guns! Think about the grease gun, which was an automatic weapon basically made out of a bunch of pipe parts. You simply can't do it. And, barring that, black powder weapons are VERY easy to make, fairly accurate, typically very high caliber so they have a whole lot of stopping power, and you don't even need cartridges, just bullets, powder, and paper. If you think you can't kill someone handily with the Morgan .50 caliber black powder revolver (the first all-steel revolver) you've got another think coming. You barely need machining technology to make those suckers.
Anyway, back to the issue of mature-rated video games. I am entirely behind not allowing kids to purchase the games. Movie theaters already don't let them in. In my opinion, games should be rated according to entirely objective criteria and their distribution to minors should be controlled. Parents should be involved in the lives of their offspring at least until the point where they are no longer responsible for them. We should provide them with the assistance that they need to be able to do their job, within reason. We wouldn't want to stop kids from being able to purchase sports games because their parents were opposed to football or anything, that's too much - but keeping the sex and violence from them in such a way that their parents can present it to them in a guided way is pretty reasonable. Your belief that themes like sex and violence have no place in the lives of those under the age of 18 is, however, excessively socially retarded - which is exactly what those kids are going to be when they are introduced to them cold and with no parental supervision (to explain the ramifications of such things) at the age of eighteen.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How about one reason I'd rather keep my right to bear arms?
I don't trust my government to do diddly squat for me.
In fact if the only ones with guns are the government it's very very easy to keep the populace in line. No thanks I'll take a higher rate of deaths by firearms to not being able to make sure I can reliably defend myself if things ever do get that bad... That is why it was a constitutional right to begin with. Those original americans didn't trust the government any more than I do...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Yes, it's the parents' responsibility, but a lot of people seem to use that fact as some sort of rationale for abdicating societal responsibility.
It's not abdicating societal responsibility; it's placing that responsibility in the right place. Society can punish the child's parents for their failures, and laws to protect children directly are an attempt to remove that responsibility from society. It's our job to hold parents accountable, and when necessary, to step in in their place.
It is not, for example, legal for 12 year olds to commit murder or even to drive a car simply because it's their parents' responsibility to make sure that they don't.
Murder is a act that reduces the freedom of others, and hence there is a legitimate need to restrict it. How does buying a video game reduce the freedom of others? This whole idea is an issue for civil court -- show that video games lead to murder and sue the fsck out of whoever made the game. If anyone could actually show that sort of relation this would have happened years ago and no one would make such games because it would be too expensive.
Finally, if the purpose of the game ban is to stop murder, couldn't I argue that the purpose of the murder ban is to stop murder, and we don't need another? Why do we need two laws to do the same thing; maybe we need to change or replace the first law, but we certainly don't need another if the first one isn't working.
banning the ownership of handguns. That way they wouldn't shoot each other.
Oh wait, they are already illegal, so why are people getting shot? If that law did any good, people would just be throwing copies of Grand Theft Auto at each other and fewer people would be dead.
I've got a slightly different take on gun laws, and what _SHOULD_ be. I think you'd need a permit to own, sort of like a drivers liscense. To get this permit, you need to go through gun safety and possibly even gun control (I.E. shooting down at the range) classes.
And then if you are found guilty of commiting a crime with a gun, you lose your liscense.
Not only would this limit access of guns to those who would use them in crimes (no, it won't totally prevent them from getting guns, just limit access somewhat) but I believe that it would reduce the number of accidental shootings.
Umm... it's already illegal to buy handguns in DC.
The states which are the most religious also have:
The highest violent crime rates
The highest murder rates
The higest rates of alcoholism
The highest divorce rates
Having morals and proper parenting has absolutely no correlation with belief in god. Sorry.
I would think that distinction would go to XBox or PS2, since the GTA series wasn't really big when DC was still in production.
Banning firearms sure worked to reduce crime!! Let's ban video games next!! Heck, let's ban plastic knives and oversized pants too!!
That parent's who aren't actively involved in the raising of their kids have them taken away. It's not the rest of the worlds job to babysit.
No sig for you!!
I'm always curious when I hear Americans saying that they need guns to protect themselves from their government. How much is use is a handgun or a even an assault rifle in the hands of someone with no military training going to be against a tank ? Or an airstrike ? In Afganistan they all had AK47's, knew the country better than the marines and still got their asses handed to them. What exactly do you think owning a hand gun/ riffle will allow you to prevent? I'm honestly curious.
Nicole Dufresne would probably still be alive if she had been armed and knew how to defend herself.
And someone else wouldn't be. Maybe more than one... I don't think someone who kills someone, or tries, should get away with it, but I don't think killing them is the answer.
I don't even think the most evil people should be killed. Would be kind of nice to show you're better than them, but alas.
But, maybe it's just the liberalism of living in a country that doesn't put people to death regularly that makes me think compassionately.
If we can't look to systemic inequity and a shitty educaction system as the source of a crime problem, it must be the video games. America is lost.
The murder rate in the United States is still four times higher than it is in either the UK or Australia, despite a higher overall violent crime rate in those countries. In other words, there is more violent crime in the UK and Australia, but less murder. Why do you think this is?
It's because of cases like this. Cases that would be a simple mugging in other countries pretty frequently turn into murders here with easy access to deadly weapons.
Bullshit. I'm going to wave my magic wand, and eliminate all gun crime from the US. I'm also going to say that all murders carried out with guns would not happen with other means (knife, etc).
The murder rate in the US would still be sky-high, higher than the countries you mention. Large parts of the US population are prone to murder. Period. Guns have nothing to do with it, it's the culture of the people. Guns make it a bit easier to kill people, but guns are not the cause - the people are.
I'd rather have something at least... What happens if I dont' even have a gun? Throw rocks at the tank/missile? No the odds aren't good of taking out a tank with any of the legally owned weapons in the US, but it's better than throwing rocks at them (of course the better option with what would be available would be moltov coktails vs the tank rather than most legal weapons)... And not being where the airstrike occurs is better than having a gun when hit with an airstrike. But 1 on 1 me versus a guy with a gun I'd rather have a gun as well...
/guided bomb devices) or Anti-tank weapons (though I bet I could build an AMR or primitive rocket weapon of some sort given enough time)... But I also know if the government takes a dislike to me they normally don't start out dropping bombs or bringing in tanks, they send in a few troopers instead figuring that a few troops are enough for one person. So If I'm armed and they are armed I at least have a fighting chance... But if I have a stick and some rocks and they have M16A1's I'm going to assing myself some awfully low odds of being able to do more than piss them off... Which would you prefer? nearly a billion to one odds or hundred to one odds? I'll take hundreds thanks.
I also mention their is no reason I couldn't have military or para-military training... In point of fact I do have some of that and even hunters have sniper style training (all be it without counter-sniper training as deer don't shoot back). It's a matter of degrees, I know I'm not likely to be able to legally own EM scramblers (anti-missile
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
When something like this comes up, I rarely hear the most important point. It's as if we already agreed that violent games are bad and are only haggling with the government about how much of our rights they should take away.
There is no evidence whatsoever that videogames lead to crime. The only "evidence" we have is 3 well-publicised cases - Doom caused Columbine, GTA caused two kids shoot trucks with a rifle and Manhunt caused one guy to kill a friend. Needless to say, all three stories are more or less bogus (95%, 90% and 100% bogus, to be precise).
I would be very understanding if DC leaders would show us a study demonstrating that 35% of minors playing video games commit crimes as opposed to 5% of minors who do not play video games. As long as there is no such study, the DC leaders are "mistaken" to limit the sale of video games.
I would even dare suggest that minors who play video games may be less likely to commit crimes (the correlation may be negative). The "criminal" kids probably have less money to spend on games, consoles, computers and Internet.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
going to change the murder rate among D.C. nigger drug dealers?
Which is where ninety percent of the murder rate in D.C. comes from...
Oh, it doesn't? Then how come when word went around Leavenworth that a bunch of D.C. niggers were being transferred there that the Leavenworth inmates (the white ones, anyway) were pissed off because D.C. niggers had a rep for being disruptive overly violent assholes - even in comparison to Leavenworth niggers?
That's right - I used the "N" word - just like every black prison inmate does 24/7...and just like I use the word "redneck" to refer to rural white assholes or "punk" to refer to urban white assholes...
And I don't give a rat's ass if anyone doesn't like it...
If a black doesn't act like a nigger, I'll stop calling him one...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
How about this scenario: You're standing in front of a heavily armed soldier wearing full body armour. Do you think you'll be more likely to survive the encounter if you're holding a sub-machine gun, or a rock?
You seem to assume that your adversary will always attack with excessive force, but the reality is that if you pose no obvious threat, you'll have a greater chance of walking away from the confrontation.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Bravo! Well said. I sure hope I had some mod points.
yes >
"Handguns should be illegal. M-rated game sales to minors should be illegal. End of story."
...how about reading a violent story? ...ok, how about *writing* a violent story? ...now how about *writing* a violent videogame?
God damn, this is funny. The arrogance astounds. I'm a libertarian (usually considered a left leaning one by friends), and I try to have tolerance for whatever "I'm-happy-when-US-troops-die" / "We-should-invade-all-nations-I-don't-like" / "The government needs to control all industry" / "The government needs to heal mens souls" crap the wide variety of left and right extremist friends of mine believe.
But man, they never give me lines saying "this is how things should be, I am right, end of story".
That's just great, oh Oracle!
"This is not a question of "my rights online", it's a question of living in a free and safe society that does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings or the sale of adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it."
Two parts to this. Does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill others? Ok, can I add a can-opener? That seems trivial, but it is not, and here's why: A human being is a multipurpose device that can also be used to kill another. With bare hands. Thankfully, reality has allowed us to distinguish which people are best at this: they are male, and look stronger. Often they spend much of their time practicing this skill. Since they are best at this, we should put them in charge, or they will use this ability on the rest of us.
That was every society's collective thinking on this issue until technology levelled the playing field. The fist, the rope, the knife- these devices would probably not be banned with your logic, but they could become just as deadly- but generally only when wielded by someone skilled or naturally talented in their use.
Fuck the age of heroes and villians. I like the age of physical democracy.
But the part about "adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it." is the part that really gets me. Arrogance riddles your post, but few places like here. Because I could make the same post to prevent minors from accessing information that is:
-Political in nature
-Religious in nature
-Philosophical in nature
Those three spheres have resulted in intense violence over the years, and kids are obviously not as equipped to deal with them. So hell, let's ban them. Instead, lets give kids just a certain number of opinions, and punish them if they don't toe the line...
The idea that free speech doesn't apply to kids is very offensive to me, from movies to books to video games. It's almost like someone thinks they know *everything* and are trying to prevent you from thinking certain thoughts...
"I realize Slashdot has more than a bit of a libertarian slant, but there is a difference between being a libertarian and being an anarchist."
Yes. The difference is, Libertarians like the 1st and 2nd amendments, which is what we are discussing here today.
I'm 20. There were never any limits on what games I could play as a kid, and guess how I turned out-I'm on the Dean's List at college with a 3.5 average. These kinds of laws are not needed. What's needed is for parents (not government) to make sure their kids don't cross the line, like mine did.
I'm glad I'm getting older. Two parents kept me in line. If the government acted as a third, I'd probably be neurotic
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
How do you have a committie quickly judge a video game? They are designed to be hard, and take time to play through. You can't see the whole thing in 2 hours like you can with a movie. What if, for example, there's a particular piece of really "offensive" content in Grand Theft Auto, offensive enough to bump up into the next rating category, but it doesn't occur until, say, the 30th mission into the game? How is the review board going to know about it when they make their judgement after only taken a few days, having watched only the first 20 or so missions into the game.?
This sounds like a futile endevour.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If someone where motivated enough to make preparations and fly to another city, they don't need a gun to kill. You can make explosives cheaply and in your bathtub. Assassinations are *extremely rare* in the United States... and most other places, for that matter.
You have to understand, the average person does not want to hurt you. Your post makes it sound like you don't know that. The result of this fear should not be to attempt to disempower others, however.
A man motivated enough to kill a person while the other person has no knowledge does not need a gun. He barely even needs imagination or money.
A burglar who is pondering breaking into a house needs to consider of the owner has a gun. If everyone did, he would need to consider another line of work. Assume our burglar lives in a world where gun control worked, and so neither he nor his victims has weapons. Now assume the opposite, where everyone does. Which burglar would you rather be?
The defensive use of guns is not at all rare, ineffective, or results in people being shot with their own guns, despite the FUD to the contrary.
"Put differently... given the choice of somebody having a gun, a knife, a bat, or only their fists - which would you rather have them wielding in a situation where they intend to kill you ?"
I would rather we both have guns. Most of the people who would be looking to kill me are hella stronger than me. In your world, I am extinct. So are you, probably, unless you spend hours a week on martial arts. Your malefactor undoubtably will, or just generally be a stronger human than you.
The fact that guns are so final an answer means that society is a lot better at enforcing its collective will. If I want to shoot a man in a world where guns are common, there is a *much higher* chance of me being shot in return, preemptively, or concurrently. This changes my odds dramatically- now I have to be willing to throw my life away. Statistically, such people either suppress their murderous desire or are dealt with by society.
Good. I hope they do. Kids that haven't hit puberty don't need GTA.
Uh how exactly do you get:
"You seem to assume that your adversary will always attack with excessive force"
When I specifically say:
"But I also know if the government takes a dislike to me they normally don't start out dropping bombs or bringing in tanks, they send in a few troopers instead figuring that a few troops are enough for one person."
I don't quite get that...
But as for:
"but the reality is that if you pose no obvious threat, you'll have a greater chance of walking away from the confrontation."
That depends entirely on what they are ordered to do... If it's shot to kill then being 'no obvious threat' isn't gonna help much... And to a 'heavily armed soldier wearing full body armour' a guy with an SMG isn't a big hulking target any more than a guy with a rock... But I'd still rather have the gun than the rock... I'd have to get an awful lot closer to do more damage with the rock than the SMG and I'd most likely be better off doing alot of other things than using a gun or a rock in such a case anyways... But my thinking is fairly military in that I'd rather have a gun when fighting someone with a gun than sending in someone with a stick against a gun and really I'd rather have a bigger gun than the other guy (which btw is standard military doctrine and has been for centuries)...
Against a government as one individual I know I'm never going to have the bigger gun these days so the doctrine of minimizing your disadvantage comes into play... And that says exactly what I said, which is I'd rather have a fairly modern gun in a gun fight rather than a rock...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Many pre-paid 'credit' cards are available to people of all ages. (Some draw the line at age 13, others don't bother with age limits at all.)
Lets see. My parents kinda forgot about me as I was the youngest of 5. Being the youngest of 5 with two older brothers. So they played and watched whatever they liked, and I was right there with them.
Horror movies, violent games. The works. When I was 13 I was exposed to alcohol. 16 I was exposed to pot. With other things available should I want them. With little to no influence I stayed clean, and sober. And I've yet to go on a killing spree.
Its amazing what your kids can do when you have a little bit of faith in them.
I can speak with certainty because I'm a US Army soldier in Iraq and while I have only limited reservations about going out to deal with insurgents in a war I know little and care little about, it's a wholly different story if I was sent to go after Americans in a war that I held a vested interest in doing as little damage as possible.
That's what the VAST majority of all the "what if" senarios involving a military coup in America fail to take into account. Those of us in the military aren't nameless and faceless. We *will* question stupid orders. And being ordered to start rounding up citizens, especially if we know they're armed and will defend themselves is something I would strongly question and more than likely refuse. Why would I place myself and my soldiers in a position where they'd have to kill their neighbors for defending themselves?
Now, if they weren't armed, they'd be peacefully rounded up. I wouldn't like it, but no one would be in any immediate danger.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
And yet NOBODY seems to want to compare the fact that a) we have the same games in Canada and b) we don't have violence on the level of the USA and c) the reason is because we don't let idiots have guns.
You already cant buy M games unless you are 17 and some places 18 in the US.
If the parent wants the kid to get it just buy it for the kid and let em play it.
I'm a minor and dont really have a problem with this then again im gona be 18 in a few months.
"Yes, it's the parents' responsibility, but a lot of people seem to use that fact as some sort of rationale for abdicating societal responsibility. It is not, for example, legal for 12 year olds to commit murder or even to drive a car simply because it's their parents' responsibility to make sure that they don't."
How many parents give their 12-yr-old a car? or a firearm? If a 12-year-old is in posession of such an item, 99 times out of 100 they will have stolen it. I expect roughly 99 out of 100 12-yr-olds who own Playstations were given them by their parents.
Parents who don't take an interest in what their children are doing are lining themselves up for all kinds of fun surprises..
Why not charge huge fines for parents who can't raise their children?
Or how about stiffer fines for gang related activities.
Instead of making so many b.s. laws that are just out right silly, why not go to the heart of the problem which in most cases is the family.
TruePunk | Games
Which is too bad, coz I could really use some fucking marijuana right about now.
You've named one situation where a gun would not help someone defend himself. You're right but so what? Who buys a gun to defend themselves against a surprise targeted sniper attack? Such attacks are not very common at all outside of warfare. And it really has no impact on the argument - it's almost like saying guns are useless because they won't defend you from slipping in the bathtub or electrocution by a toaster. It still is nonresponsive to the question of whether guns can be helpful in self-defense in other situations.
You have to understand, the average person does not want to burgle you. Your post makes it sound like you don't know that. The result of this fear should not be to attempt to arm others, however.
This is why we have insurance. Stuff gets stolen, maybe it's yours. No don't really lose anything, society as a whole will pay for it. We try and discourage burglary through the actions of professionals like police and lawyers, your responsibility is to do your own job.
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
And your hypothetical assailant could easily take me out with a bottle of gasoline with a rag in it. Time to ban gasoline.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So much for liberals and freedom
The intelligent comment above is labeled "flamebait" while the flamebait above it blaming the Democrats for everything is labeled insightful? Welcome to CrazyWorld...
A more informative article. .357.
The murderer obtained the weapon illegally. He did not walk into a gun shop, plunk down a few hundred bucks and walk out with a Taurus
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So should cops kill a guy who's threatening someone's life? Or should the cop keep pleading with the crook until he gets tired of killing people and gives himself up?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'm glad to hear that because the Democratic party over here keeps telling us that we're "losing" in Iraq against a bunch of guys with AK-47s.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Don't sweat it. If I happen upon you being mugged at gun point on the street, you can rest assured that I'll be armed and take the violent bastard down to save your silly ass.
There seems to be more than one "violent bastard" in this scenario.
Really.
Bullshit. Go to Japan and try to buy a gun.
I lived in Japan for four years. Not only was I offered the chance to buy guns, I could have bought full-auto M-16's which had been stolen from the Air Force base where I lived. Don't kid yourself about crime there. It may not make the news but it's there.
Seriously. If you think gun control doesn't work, then you just don't have a very well-developed world view. It does work and it has been working in various countries for many years. In fact, I just did a quick Google search on gun murder in Japan and quickly came up with some numbers from 1996: 9,390 gun murders in the US vs. 15 in Japan. Japan's murder rate has not increased appreciably since then - they have around 1,300 total per year (about 1/8 the number of gun murders alone in this country) with a population about half that of the United States.
*sigh* People love pointing out that Japan has a low crime rate and rather extreme gun control. I might also point out that Switzerland has an extremely low crime rate, yet most citizens have easy access to firearms I wouldn't be able to buy even here in the "gun-friendly" US. Let me tell you a dirty little secret: countries with the low crime rates generally have one thing in common: an extremely homogenous society. The greater the variation of race, religion and other cultural factors within a society the greater the rate of violence within that society. People don't like to think about this because it says some awfully unpleasant things about Humans as a species.
Handguns should be illegal. M-rated game sales to minors should be illegal. End of story. This is not a question of "my rights online", it's a question of living in a free and safe society that does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings or the sale of adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it.
Ah. I see. You're a nanny-statist. That pretty much explains your viewpoint. Never mind.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Alright, let's say they do ban sales of 'violent' games to minors. What are they trying to accomplish?
/. reported was made into law, we'd be living in one hell of a totalitarian state. And we're not; look around.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Kids are more crafty than we give them credit for. Especially as they get older (mid-teens) they get connections. If they want alcohol, they can get it, for crying out loud.... if they want a video game, it's a fairly simple matter of acquiring it.
The only group of people this law helps is the overzealous douchebag parents who want their child to be pure and innocent (a debateable goal, but that's another thread for another time) and expect the laws to do it for them.
It DOESN'T help parents who are caring, if protective, of their kids. It doesn't help parents who are fair to their kids. For that matter, it doesn't help parents who neglect their kids, or let them run free -- those kids will be able to get their hands on whatever they want even more easily.
So we're talking a few percent, max. This is not a law of the majority. What keeps me sane about the government is that, even though a bill might be introduced, it has a very low chance of passing. Slashdot likes to report scary things that are introduced, but rarely does it follow up on them -- if we just assumed everything
In short, don't freak, just breathe, understand what this issue's about, and move on.
I have what may be a silly question... I tried to post the link to this story to some friends, and they couldn't pull it up because it said registration was required. So then I pointed them to the slashdot article, and had them click the link, and it still said registration required. But then I had them go to the slashdot home page and click the same link, and the article appeared, no mention of registration. I tried to do the same thing and got the same result as they did. Why is this? I'm just curious, as it seems to be an odd behaviour...
IIRC in Japan they have vending machines on the streets for cigarettes, beer, hard-core pr0n, coffee. So either they trust their kids or their parents take responsibility I guess.
Sure, now - but what happens next when some thoughtful lawmaker realizes that this _CLEARLY_ wasn't intended [after all, we don't allow this for tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc] and to "close the loophole" by making it illegal for parents to buy adult-rated games [CDs, etc] for their kids?
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
..banning guns for a change?
well in a perfect world maybe.... but i`ll use one example why gun laws are bad... the warsaw jews wouldn`t have been able to take a stand or fight back... so the germans would have been able to kill the jews more easier without being shot themselves. if it happened once it can happen again. history proves that.... man doesn`t learn from history he only repeats it...
hear! hear! they have over a hundred unsolved murder cases... in memory of shandra levy...
Young people can get a distorted view of sex from porn. They might think that it is normal in everyday sex for the guy to pull out and shoot his load on the girl's face. They might also think that 3-way or 4-way sex is common, or that cable repairmen, plumbers, mailmen, and pool cleaners often have sex with bored housewives with big breasts who sun themselves by the pool naked. Anyway, the fact that porn production values have dropped so much in the past 20 years doesn't help things. Modern porn looks less like escapist fantasy and more like "Reality TV". At least video games look more like fantasy.
My other first post is car post.
Threads like this end up being relatively reactionary. "OMFG the Government wants to take control us!"
:) ).
Please consider some important facts.
"Movie Ratings"
The Movie Industry implemented a rating system BECAUSE the Government pressured them to do it. It ain't perfect, but we use it and it generally works. AND there's no fear of censorship (well, except that motivated by money).
The Game Industry simply needs to adopt a standard rating system, adhere to it, and make sure retailers do too. Then there's no censorship (except $$ motivated)... you can make a game any way you want. Parents get some idea of what's in the game beforehand and can decide if they feel it's appropriate for their kids/themselves.
"Forcing their Morality on Kids"
There is no such thing as "FORCING MORALITY" on someone. Don't believe me, go see A Clockwork Orange (with your parents
Parents influence their children, but they don't make the ultimate moral decisions. If parents feel a game/movie/web site aint appropriate for their children, then it's the parent's RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to limit their use (with good communication as to why, IMHO).
This results in influence. And as children grow into adults, they (hopefully) recall this influence... but they ultimately get to decide if they agree with it.
If they don't agree, they don't agree. Period. You can't force them to agree.
So all this to say... Game Industry: Implement a consistent rating system in games and adhere to it... don't have the government do it for you. No, it won't be perfect, but it will probably (for the most part) work.
-Pie
Burglary is one example: my argument doesn't rely on it. I don't even have an alarm system at my house.
Specialization is for insects. Whose will feed me when I hunger? Who will clothe me? Who will bathe me? Certainly all of these things are assumed to be *my* job. Self defense is a human right. A man killing you cannot be insured against (not in a way that brings you back to life, in any event). Police may be tasked with that job, but it has been found in court that that they are not required to do so. Only you are responsible for yourself, because you are a person, not a cog in a machine.
Being able to do "My job" includes making sure that I am whole of body and mind, and that includes the ability to defend myself, just as it requires that I be able to feed and take care of myself.
There is no R rating for games in Australia, if it meets R classification it is banned.
Postal 2 and Manhunt are therefore widely illegally copied.
Games in Australia are rated G (general), PG (Parental Guidence), M (Mature, recommended 15+) and MA (Mature, 15+ required).
Please note games are typically rated at a level higher then a movie with the same content.
eg: A movie rated PG may get a M rating if a game.
Oh man.. there's got to be some sick f*ck out there who :
Wishes they were a murderer.
Wishes they had a gun.
Wishes they had a printer so they could print your post out.
Wishes they could afford to take a trip to wherever you're at right now.
Sounds like you know that mind well. To you and your hypothetical sick fuck, I say, bring it.
Just be sure to pack a lunch. It won't be as easy as you think since I don't live in the gaming world you've used create your idea of reality.
ditto assailant / burglar. who says that you will shoot them before they assault you ?
:P~
chances are however, that given a gun you'll aim for the chest or head and kill them. whilst the chances a burglar kills you is minor - unless you decide to actually confront them. and if the case is purely defense, then you could use a stun gun or a tranquilizer dart gun instead.
the whole point of 'regular' guns is to inflict bodily, and more to the point, lethal injury. which is not the point of gasoline. btw, creation and posession of molotov cocktails are against the law, so your argument doesn't even fly. if nothing else, you're saying that you should arm yourself with a molotov cocktail, rather than a gun. would certainly be cheaper, and a lot safer - as you'd think twice before throwing it
between protecting children and squelching speech.
It really depends how the law is worded. If it protects children without stopping adults, then it's actually worthwhile. If it turns into outright banning of some games, then, it's a failure.
Also remember, there's little to stop the same 16 yr old from picking up a few books involving murder and mayhem.
EB didn't go bankrupt.
{shrug}
UTF-8: There and Back Again
A ban on guns in the US would definately prevent deaths in the long term. However, it will not happen in our lifetimes. You also must remember that most of the population in the US lives in rural areas. So, many places have inadaquete police coverage, which makes people want to have guns. As for video games, there are many factors in a child or teenager's life that may cause violent tendencies. I'm not aware of video games as being high on this list when you are looking at the scientific studies. People would be much better off directing their energies toward something that would help childern to live in a stable, happy, and healthy home, and not worry about video games and R rated movies so much. We should worry more about things like hard drugs, abusive guardians, smoking, and things that cause people to get arrested.
Sure, I know criminals will be able to get their guns illegally. I just take my chances with that.
Gee, that's logical.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Less we forget Andrew Wiggins. Video games have their uses.
I'm against guns outside of specialist forces. Sure, I know criminals will be able to get their guns illegally. I just take my chances with that.
Doesn't it ever occur to you that your taking chances for yourself doesn't logically extend to others?
At any rate, if you don't like the fact of private ownership of a variety of weapons in the United States, all you really have to do is have your Congressional Representative start the process of amending the US Constitution. Once the effort leaves the Congress, it can then be voted on by the States. Once 38 States vote for it, your wish will come true.
Anything other than that is an unconstitutional daydream.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
It certainly is ironic that the city housing the US Constitution has unconstitutionally banned the private keeping and bearing of arms. This in no way makes it a good idea to spread this unconstitutional behavior. And if you haven't caught on yet: what DC did is fucking unconstitutional.
To put it another way, a successful murder in one area isn't a model for committing murder in another. It's still immoral, and it's still illegal.
DC needs to be corrected. What is lacking here is a popular will in the DC area to assert the law of the land over DC.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
(Japan's murder rate has not increased appreciably >since then - they have around 1,300 total per year >(about 1/8 the number of gun murders alone in this >country) with a population about half that of the >United States.)
.22 in America. You'll find that they have a low crime rate.
Japan is a homogenous society with a strong family and community structure. You shouldn't cite their success to justify gun control in America.
Many arab countries including Iraq have a strong gun culture where AK variants are the most popular firearms, in contrast to the
Your decadent society is to blame, not the availability of firearms. You'd better address the problem if you prohibited divorce.
actually its much more logical than the attitude of letting possibly mentally unbalanced drug addicts go into a store and buy an assault rifle.
How is this *everyone has machineguns* attitude worked in the US, maybe you have no violent crime or gun deaths?
errrr no it would appear you are the gun crime capital of the western world.congratulations.
Well said. Its pretty obvious that having more guns has SAVED lives here in the good ol USA. In fact I lobby my congressman to encourage all citizens to have compulsory training in handguns, and even have a low power sidearm issued by the state. For especially patriotic citizens i recommend they be given SMGs or better still rocket launchers or possibly stinger missiles. People who really want to do their duty will be given tanks.
This will make Amercia the freeist and most democratic nation of earth. Those damn liberal foreigners just hate our freedom.
USA! USA!
I've been carded more frequently for video game purchases in my life than I have for alcohol. It's kind of disconcerting.
By making a "law" it will give a rush for those who do it. I, at a very young age, had access to many "taboo" items. Alcohol, cigaretts, and all sorts of other things that a child of my age should not have had. By my mother not making a big deal out of any of it, the excitement wasn't there. Therefor I didn't "do" to excess as many of my friends of that time did.
Now, as a parrent. I am taking a similar approach to my children. By giving them honest information, letting them know what I did at that age, and by not coming flat out and saying "no you can't," they seem to make the right choices.
Through my stance my edlest, at age 10, has not, as I did by that age, had any desire to smoke, or drink. By 10 I was sippin' peppermint schnapps and had stolen cigarett butts to smoke with my friends under the train trestle. But, I have also told him that I did and told him that if he *ever* wants to try something to let me know and I would let him.
No rush, no excitement, no thrill of "getting away with it" so he has no desire to.
Make it taboo and they will do it.
I watched all the Road Runner cartoons as a kid, and never once strapped an Acme JATO bottle to my crotch, of jumped off a cliff with an anvil, suspended by a thread tied to a balloon!
Methinks that the constabulary is looking in the wrong direction! Perhaps is is a lack of proper parenting and disclipine by families and educators?
Or am I being to Politically Incorrect???
IMHO, FWIW.
-?
Problem is, the people with money and education don't live in DC. They come in for the day, work, and commute back out to their mansions in Montgomery or Fairfax County. That's why the beltway is such a mess during rush-hour.
You tell me, when was the last time powerful government organizations listened to people with no money? When did the uneducated ever show great ability for self-rule?
I am glad the government is finally doing this. Not because I think it will work, but now we finally have something to point to when the Mothers Coalitions get all up in arms about the content of games like GTA and the new Larry.
Of course, this will let them again blame Canada (Canada in this case being the Retailers) for thier kids playing these games... Well, at least they won't blame the developers anymore.
Why doesn't Congress pass a law allowing me to go kick lazy parents asses instead?
The Soul Master
'Bout time..
I think we should protect all of society from itself and ban life. Because if there was no life, there would be no death. Then the problem would be solved.
The crates you can jump on and then shoot, and of course the obliglitory level suspended above Lava or Space or some other thing that makes you instantly die if you fall into it.