Congressman Wants Health Warnings On Video Games

An anonymous reader writes "California Rep. Joe Baca has proposed a bill which would mandate placing health warning labels on any video game rated T (13+) or higher by the ESRB. The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 would require a cigarette pack-like label that reads, 'WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.'"

Comments

Citation needed

[WCguru42]

I haven't followed the research enough so I could be completely wrong but isn't the reason why cigarettes can have the Surgeon General's health warning on them because the statement has been clinically proven. Has there been any consensus on video game violence and violence in teens.

Re:Label the kids?

[Firethorn]

While there are many things I'd hold a parent responsible for, unfortunately we haven't identified the parenting method that leads to school shootings.

Until we have done so and teach the avoidance measures necessary, I find it premature to hold parents responsible when a child goes off the deep end that far.

Much like straight suicide, often these kids are already receiving professional help; but again sometimes like suicide there's no obvious sign they're going to commit a spree killing before they do so and the 20/20 hindsight investigation happens.

For example, I've long had an arsenal 'under my bed', but despite my profession I've never shot anybody. Yet on the news, obtaining of arms is considered one of the signs. The possession was also considered a risk factor for suicide in one of the anti-suicide classes I attended. My response was 'A gun is a vector, a tool, of suicide, not a risk. You might as well check to see if somebody owns rope, a knife, or has sleeping pills.

I blame the rise of spree killings on a number of factors - first is that we've gone from local reporting to national, even world reporting. How many incidents would have been reported in the 1950s? Consider that school shootings are not even an annual event, and back then we had half the population. Second would be opportunity. It was much rarer to have access to a completely disarmed target area back then. For example, a school shooting DID occur - in 1956, by Charles Whitman. He killed 14, wounded 32. He faced suppressive fire from civilians, forcing him to keep his head down, limiting his opportunities to kill more. How much worse could he have been if he'd attempted that at Virginia Tech, in the year 2007? After all, Whitman was a trained marine. Third would be the possible link to prescribed anti-depressants. Whitman had some sort of brain tumor.

Finally, I'll end with the note that despite our violent movies and violent video games, that most violent offenders don't play video games, and the rate of violent crime in minors has been dropping.

Re:2nd warning label following the initial

[Loundry]

Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation.

You're obviously biased one way, and that's fine. Furthermore, it may be confusing cause and effect, something people haven't don't seem to have put much thought into. I have no doubt that psychopaths will enjoy violent video games.

That said, can you cite the studies you reference? I'm very curious.