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?
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
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
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!
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...
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.
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.