Too bad you are teaching anachronisms which fail to account for the fact that society's functional parameters are changing as evidenced by this study itself. Ultimately your children will have a view of the world warped by these anachronisms and may be unable to eventually figure out why everybody thinks they are prissy cold fish.
Most everybody I knew in college, in an exclusive Honors Program no less, swore like sailors, myself included. Sorry, but don't buy the hype that swearing is somehow correlative with education. It's not.
Granted, when Amazon's consumers rightly started to riot, Jeff Bezos himself stepped in with some deus ex machina and made everything better, but that's exactly it, unless a ton of people complain loudly they are going to get shafted.
Why wouldn't they? It was a unique Firaxis product. That's like saying MS doesn't have the rights to Windows. You're confusing it with Civ itself, which used to be a MicroProse IP. The real reason, so far as anybody knows, is that the Brian Reynolds and Tim Train who were main designer/producers for SMAC left Firaxis after the development and release of the Crossfire expansion. I still can't believe that the guy responsible for SMAC (Brian Reynolds) now works for Zynga churning out shit like Farmville. It's like learning that after painting the Mona Lisa Leonardo da Vinci went on to draw illustrations for magazine advertisements.
While I agree the voice acting in SMAC was excellent, it is down right nerd heresy to criticize Leonard Nimoy's voice. Hell, it's hard for me not to cream myself when I hear Leonard Nimoy read a quote from Aristotle.
Too bad 'group selection' is a largely discredited idea in evolutionary biology. If the individual doesn't reproduce their genes die with them no matter how cool it might have been to the others around it to have around. However there is a more evidence-based conception of the evolutionary utility to individuals of homosexuality: sexually antagonistic selection.
It may surprise you to realize that sometimes people need satellites to operate on the 'night' side of the terminator. The planet has kind of a big shadow.
While I'm sure there will be no shortage of design challenges, there is a fair amount of precedent to work from in terms of the Pathfinder and Helios prototypes. It's also important to note that the design of a UAV can be an order of magnitude less rigorous than that of a piloted aircraft because you don't have to pressurize it or design a flight deck or account for human survivability etc.
all the things I geek out about having sex with each other
Curse your turn of phrase! I was baited into considering this scenario and things were going fine until I started thinking about the humanities... and the horror... PhDs who write treatises on economics, politics, and philosophy are NOT attractive. Ever.
You're obtuse. Selling/buying drugs is a crime-in-itself, selling/buying guns is not. So when a cop entices a dealer to sell drugs, he is getting that dealer to knowingly and intentionally commit a crime. If a cop provides false information to a gun dealer which would meet all the legal requirements for a lawful sale and then says 'ha! I lied to you! You aren't actually selling legally like you thought you were!' The is no demonstrable knowledge or intent on the side of the dealer to commit a crime, quite the opposite, the dealer only sold because he believed to the best of his knowledge that the legal requirements were met. These are quite different scenarios. I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be construed as legal advice.
Actually, section 3 is about twice as long as the whole bit he quoted, and includes many, many scenarios wherein the law does not apply, including written parental consent and explicit primacy of state and local law. Naturally he omitted this because it undermined his point. When it comes to gun rights, don't believe people until you've done the research yourself. There are a lot of agenda-driven FUD spewers and liars out there.
Actually, he disingenuously omitted a HUGE section about where the code does not apply:
(3) This subsection does not apply to--
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a
juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a
juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the
juvenile--
(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching
or farming related to activities at the residence of the
juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which
the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or
lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the
farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of
instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent
or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local
law from possessing a firearm, except--
(I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded
handgun in a locked container directly from the place of
transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause
(i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of
that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly
from the place at which such an activity took place to the
transferor; or
(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as
described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a
handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the
juvenile's parent or legal guardian and at the direction of
an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local
law from possessing a firearm;
(iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the
juvenile's possession at all times when a handgun is in the
possession of the juvenile; and
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;
(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United
States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed with a
handgun in the line of duty;
(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of a
handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile
taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an
intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which
the juvenile is an invited guest.
Er, yeah, so the law actually says that if state or local law says it's ok, then it's ok. (A)(iv)
You're conflating ownership and purchasing power. Federal law dictates that minors cannot purchase firearms, but it is state law that dictates whether or not a minor may "own" a firearm (insofar as a minor "owns" anything, the legal term is "possess"). For example in Montana and Alaska a 14 year old can possess and open carry a handgun legally so long as an adult has legally purchased it and freely given it to the kid. (However Montana does not preempt localities on age of carry so local ordinances can be stricter than state law with regard to legal age to carry. Alaska preemption is total, so no locality can impose any restrictions beyond state law.) I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be taken as legal advice.
That point cards are useful and aimed at minors is not in doubt; however, that by itself does not demonstrate that those minors are using those points specifically for older games. Without a demographic breakdown (and a few different search strings turned up nothing public for me) there is no way to demonstrate that a large number of minors buy games for virtual console. In fact some of the articles I looked at, while mentioning no numbers, emphasized the popularity of older games with older gamers and that the primary motivator is nostalgia. This is what I would ultimately expect as a majority.
Jesus you really like line breaks don't you? It's like reading free verse.
Just because I decided to mention two related things (which I didn't conflate, I specifically called out 'sexting' as 'distributing child porn' not 'statutory rape', that conflation is in your own head for whatever reason) which are different charges does not mean they can have 'nothing to do with' each other. This just in: teens who send naughty pictures to each other are probably going to get it on if they haven't already. Sorry to disabuse you.
As for laws, I can have an opinion, based on efficacy, against a given law. That is my prerogative. Obviously in a democracy if the majority wants something and it is Constitutional, my personal opinion is going to have no binding effect. I can't believe I'm explaining something this obvious. You say you're over 40? Are you senile? Anyway, the "passability" of a law is not an inherent justification of that law. A majority of people can be wrong.
Just because this would affect minors and not adults doesn't make it any less important. I hate that attitude, 'oh well, it doesn't affect me so whatever lol!' It is a restriction that is unnecessary and a continuation of the lazy delegation of parental duties to the state. As such is ultimately detrimental to the quality of the family, the example set by parents for their children, and the integrity of the nation as a whole. It's this 'who cares, it doesn't affect me so if it passes it must be fine' attitude that has led to unjust, bigoted laws like Defense of Marriage Acts.
You assert:
a) It is possible for minors to acquire points without credit cards
b) Points can be used to buy old games for virtual console
Therefore c) because a) and b) are merely possible it necessarily follows that a large number of minors "buy" old games for virtual console (in a market containing both adults and minors where minors do still have some barriers to entry even if they are not wholly excluded) even though there is no discrete verifiable demographic data to back up this hypothesis.
Yeah you need to take a course in logic if you think possible = probable, let alone statistically significant.
You are making such a firm statement about laws but yet you do not seem to understand them.
Pot, meet kettle. The exceptions you are speaking of are collectively known as 'Romeo and Juliet' laws and vary from state to state (and are far from standard or common, I can find less than a dozen states with such laws). There are states where any sexual contact below the age of consent is illegal. This is especially true for homosexual contact (look up the case of Matthew Limon who was given a 17 year sentence for consensual sex where 15 months would have been given if the case had been heterosexual and thereby covered under the local 'Romeo and Juliet' law). Do some research before you start throwing out accusations of a lack of understanding.
Nor was arguing from a position of (lack of) perfect efficacy. I was arguing that there would be little to no efficacy. And a comparison to violent crime is false on its face. Violent crimes are illegal because they are always harmful. Violent games would be restricted as a means to an idea of enacting somebody's concept of a positive social change or the empowerment of the lazy and irresponsible to delegate one more thing to the ever watchful, omnibenevolent state. Completely different motivations, goals, and degrees of importance.
Strong opinions with a lack of knowledge is just not a good thin [sic] when it comes to laws.
Been looking the mirror have we?
The real people that do not want these laws are the big media companies.
So I'm not a real person? A bit dehumanizing don't you think? And you'll pardon me if I don't think a debate about the semantics of the word 'mature' is worth my time.
The plural of anecdote is not data. I was speaking generally, and unless you can point to proof of a general appreciation among minors for abandonware, you are not invalidating my point. DS games are also current, and fails to meet criteria for invalidating my point.
So interaction with people is required to develop social skills? Holy shit! I've been doing it all wrong!
Ugh, please. What we're talking about here ultimately is authority. Authority is delegated from the parents' at the parents' discretion. The insidious core of the 'it takes a village' mindset is that others have some kind of implicit authority over one's children by age or position (here I am talking about the authority to 'raise' which implies education, instruction, etc. not explicitly delegated e.g. you send your kids to a school your are delegating the authority to educate them).
... that child will try to sneak a game you don't want them to play. This makes is harder. It's just a tool.
That's what I said, law or no they will sneak access. My point is that it doesn't make it harder (in any statistically significant sense), but it would still be an (unnecessary) legal reality. Laws are not merely tools. They are imposition of the full power of the state into what would otherwise be private affairs. There needs to be demonstrable benefit before things like that are put in place, as they are very hard to roll back and very easy to expand.
some experience are harmful and can impact your child negatively for the rest of their lives.
As I already said to tehcyder: 'I think that the exclusion of criminal behavior is normally assumed.' Anything less than that is called life. If your kids can't deal with otherwise legal scenarios without being scarred for life, you're doing something wrong.
I am arguing that the law shouldn't be in place. Further, the age to drink and smoke is much lower in every other country in the world with little to no correlatible ill effect. I would support the lowering, even the elimination of age restrictions on such things so long as parental authority is not undermined to set the standard of behavior for their children. And if your kids are hanging with heroin addicts/pushers or pimps, you have problems that no law is likely to solve, save for when CPS makes your kids wards of the state.
I also disagree with statutory rape laws insofar as precocious kids sexually experimenting consensually with those their own age should not result in criminal charges. Further I think it is deplorable that teenagers are getting sex offender records for "distributing child porn" for sending lewd pictures of themselves to each other. There should be protection of children from sexual advances of people significantly older for the simple reason that there is too much potential to exploit authority and naivete where significant age differences are involved.
I think you are mistaking me for a different kind of parent.
Open manholes? Really? Apples to oranges, and a terrible strawman. So, since you're (poorly) attempting to articulate an opposing view, let's return to the specified scenario. Would you argue against investigating the people and environments to which your children are normally exposed? I rather think not.
The difference between de jure and de facto boundaries is incredibly important. Where a control is only a de facto implementation by a society or corporation, it allows for change and competing ideas much more easily. When a control is de jure it is necessarily a legal precedent that will generate case law, even if the law is repealed (a rarity) that case law may still be referenced in future decisions, and if the law stands and is enforced it can easily become a slippery slope justification for worse legislation.
You understand, that this argument here, itself, is us being "part of a village" taking care of our kids. The very communication itself, I mean.
I am dismissing, with cause, the advice being rendered. While I may be incidentally part of this hypothetical 'village', the participation in this case heretofore is ultimately unidirectional in effect.
Oh, and the people that I hire to watch my kid I trust as far as I can throw the background check that I did on them. Put that due diligence in your pipe and smoke it.
While I don't agree with banning games, toys, or guns, to be fair, it's almost impossible to save yourself from a violent home invasion with a copy of GTA4. (And further, there is a certain rationale, even if I don't agree with it, to banning toy guns... if during a police action a toy gun which has been altered to look more realistic is spotted the possessor may just get dropped by a justifiably anxious officer.)
Apparently you have a very narrow view of 'sexual violence'. Ever heard of BDSM? Some people do actually like and mutually consent to 'violent' sexual behavior, and this is unassailably morally superior to any kind of involuntary violence (and no, while reenacting historical battles may be enriching in some dimensions, it is not a voluntary event where one soldier asks the other if he would kindly please kill him).
It should be left to parents, not the state, to determine when and how their children are exposed and educated to these matters. I realize of course that the way this poll was worded the parents are still given an option, but I consider this a slippery slope. It's a law that would be unnecessary in cases where parents are already acting responsibly, and a law which is moot if the parents are irresponsible, but it still acts as a precedent for more draconian legislation down the road while achieving no positive effects in the immediate term.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad you are teaching anachronisms which fail to account for the fact that society's functional parameters are changing as evidenced by this study itself. Ultimately your children will have a view of the world warped by these anachronisms and may be unable to eventually figure out why everybody thinks they are prissy cold fish.
Most everybody I knew in college, in an exclusive Honors Program no less, swore like sailors, myself included. Sorry, but don't buy the hype that swearing is somehow correlative with education. It's not.
I'm sure that the potential for abuse will never be realized... *giggle*
I mean really, are you that gullible?
Granted, when Amazon's consumers rightly started to riot, Jeff Bezos himself stepped in with some deus ex machina and made everything better, but that's exactly it, unless a ton of people complain loudly they are going to get shafted.
Why wouldn't they? It was a unique Firaxis product. That's like saying MS doesn't have the rights to Windows. You're confusing it with Civ itself, which used to be a MicroProse IP. The real reason, so far as anybody knows, is that the Brian Reynolds and Tim Train who were main designer/producers for SMAC left Firaxis after the development and release of the Crossfire expansion. I still can't believe that the guy responsible for SMAC (Brian Reynolds) now works for Zynga churning out shit like Farmville. It's like learning that after painting the Mona Lisa Leonardo da Vinci went on to draw illustrations for magazine advertisements.
While I agree the voice acting in SMAC was excellent, it is down right nerd heresy to criticize Leonard Nimoy's voice. Hell, it's hard for me not to cream myself when I hear Leonard Nimoy read a quote from Aristotle.
Too bad 'group selection' is a largely discredited idea in evolutionary biology. If the individual doesn't reproduce their genes die with them no matter how cool it might have been to the others around it to have around. However there is a more evidence-based conception of the evolutionary utility to individuals of homosexuality: sexually antagonistic selection.
It may surprise you to realize that sometimes people need satellites to operate on the 'night' side of the terminator. The planet has kind of a big shadow.
While I'm sure there will be no shortage of design challenges, there is a fair amount of precedent to work from in terms of the Pathfinder and Helios prototypes. It's also important to note that the design of a UAV can be an order of magnitude less rigorous than that of a piloted aircraft because you don't have to pressurize it or design a flight deck or account for human survivability etc.
all the things I geek out about having sex with each other
Curse your turn of phrase! I was baited into considering this scenario and things were going fine until I started thinking about the humanities... and the horror... PhDs who write treatises on economics, politics, and philosophy are NOT attractive. Ever.
You're obtuse. Selling/buying drugs is a crime-in-itself, selling/buying guns is not. So when a cop entices a dealer to sell drugs, he is getting that dealer to knowingly and intentionally commit a crime. If a cop provides false information to a gun dealer which would meet all the legal requirements for a lawful sale and then says 'ha! I lied to you! You aren't actually selling legally like you thought you were!' The is no demonstrable knowledge or intent on the side of the dealer to commit a crime, quite the opposite, the dealer only sold because he believed to the best of his knowledge that the legal requirements were met. These are quite different scenarios. I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be construed as legal advice.
Actually, section 3 is about twice as long as the whole bit he quoted, and includes many, many scenarios wherein the law does not apply, including written parental consent and explicit primacy of state and local law. Naturally he omitted this because it undermined his point. When it comes to gun rights, don't believe people until you've done the research yourself. There are a lot of agenda-driven FUD spewers and liars out there.
(3) This subsection does not apply to--
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a
juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a
juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the
juvenile--
(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching
or farming related to activities at the residence of the
juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which
the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or
lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the
farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of
instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent
or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local
law from possessing a firearm, except--
(I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded
handgun in a locked container directly from the place of
transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause
(i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of
that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly
from the place at which such an activity took place to the
transferor; or
(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as
described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a
handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the
juvenile's parent or legal guardian and at the direction of
an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local
law from possessing a firearm;
(iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the
juvenile's possession at all times when a handgun is in the
possession of the juvenile; and
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;
(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United
States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed with a
handgun in the line of duty;
(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of a
handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile
taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an
intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which
the juvenile is an invited guest.
Er, yeah, so the law actually says that if state or local law says it's ok, then it's ok. (A)(iv)
You're conflating ownership and purchasing power. Federal law dictates that minors cannot purchase firearms, but it is state law that dictates whether or not a minor may "own" a firearm (insofar as a minor "owns" anything, the legal term is "possess"). For example in Montana and Alaska a 14 year old can possess and open carry a handgun legally so long as an adult has legally purchased it and freely given it to the kid. (However Montana does not preempt localities on age of carry so local ordinances can be stricter than state law with regard to legal age to carry. Alaska preemption is total, so no locality can impose any restrictions beyond state law.) I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be taken as legal advice.
That point cards are useful and aimed at minors is not in doubt; however, that by itself does not demonstrate that those minors are using those points specifically for older games. Without a demographic breakdown (and a few different search strings turned up nothing public for me) there is no way to demonstrate that a large number of minors buy games for virtual console. In fact some of the articles I looked at, while mentioning no numbers, emphasized the popularity of older games with older gamers and that the primary motivator is nostalgia. This is what I would ultimately expect as a majority.
Jesus you really like line breaks don't you? It's like reading free verse.
Just because I decided to mention two related things (which I didn't conflate, I specifically called out 'sexting' as 'distributing child porn' not 'statutory rape', that conflation is in your own head for whatever reason) which are different charges does not mean they can have 'nothing to do with' each other. This just in: teens who send naughty pictures to each other are probably going to get it on if they haven't already. Sorry to disabuse you.
As for laws, I can have an opinion, based on efficacy, against a given law. That is my prerogative. Obviously in a democracy if the majority wants something and it is Constitutional, my personal opinion is going to have no binding effect. I can't believe I'm explaining something this obvious. You say you're over 40? Are you senile? Anyway, the "passability" of a law is not an inherent justification of that law. A majority of people can be wrong.
Just because this would affect minors and not adults doesn't make it any less important. I hate that attitude, 'oh well, it doesn't affect me so whatever lol!' It is a restriction that is unnecessary and a continuation of the lazy delegation of parental duties to the state. As such is ultimately detrimental to the quality of the family, the example set by parents for their children, and the integrity of the nation as a whole. It's this 'who cares, it doesn't affect me so if it passes it must be fine' attitude that has led to unjust, bigoted laws like Defense of Marriage Acts.
You assert:
a) It is possible for minors to acquire points without credit cards
b) Points can be used to buy old games for virtual console
Therefore c) because a) and b) are merely possible it necessarily follows that a large number of minors "buy" old games for virtual console (in a market containing both adults and minors where minors do still have some barriers to entry even if they are not wholly excluded) even though there is no discrete verifiable demographic data to back up this hypothesis.
Yeah you need to take a course in logic if you think possible = probable, let alone statistically significant.
You are making such a firm statement about laws but yet you do not seem to understand them.
Pot, meet kettle. The exceptions you are speaking of are collectively known as 'Romeo and Juliet' laws and vary from state to state (and are far from standard or common, I can find less than a dozen states with such laws). There are states where any sexual contact below the age of consent is illegal. This is especially true for homosexual contact (look up the case of Matthew Limon who was given a 17 year sentence for consensual sex where 15 months would have been given if the case had been heterosexual and thereby covered under the local 'Romeo and Juliet' law). Do some research before you start throwing out accusations of a lack of understanding.
Nor was arguing from a position of (lack of) perfect efficacy. I was arguing that there would be little to no efficacy. And a comparison to violent crime is false on its face. Violent crimes are illegal because they are always harmful. Violent games would be restricted as a means to an idea of enacting somebody's concept of a positive social change or the empowerment of the lazy and irresponsible to delegate one more thing to the ever watchful, omnibenevolent state. Completely different motivations, goals, and degrees of importance.
Strong opinions with a lack of knowledge is just not a good thin [sic] when it comes to laws.
Been looking the mirror have we?
The real people that do not want these laws are the big media companies.
So I'm not a real person? A bit dehumanizing don't you think? And you'll pardon me if I don't think a debate about the semantics of the word 'mature' is worth my time.
Ew... I said 'your are'... that's what I get for typing too fast with a head cold on Robitussin.
The plural of anecdote is not data. I was speaking generally, and unless you can point to proof of a general appreciation among minors for abandonware, you are not invalidating my point. DS games are also current, and fails to meet criteria for invalidating my point.
Ugh, please. What we're talking about here ultimately is authority. Authority is delegated from the parents' at the parents' discretion. The insidious core of the 'it takes a village' mindset is that others have some kind of implicit authority over one's children by age or position (here I am talking about the authority to 'raise' which implies education, instruction, etc. not explicitly delegated e.g. you send your kids to a school your are delegating the authority to educate them).
... that child will try to sneak a game you don't want them to play. This makes is harder. It's just a tool.
That's what I said, law or no they will sneak access. My point is that it doesn't make it harder (in any statistically significant sense), but it would still be an (unnecessary) legal reality. Laws are not merely tools. They are imposition of the full power of the state into what would otherwise be private affairs. There needs to be demonstrable benefit before things like that are put in place, as they are very hard to roll back and very easy to expand.
some experience are harmful and can impact your child negatively for the rest of their lives.
As I already said to tehcyder: 'I think that the exclusion of criminal behavior is normally assumed.' Anything less than that is called life. If your kids can't deal with otherwise legal scenarios without being scarred for life, you're doing something wrong.
I am arguing that the law shouldn't be in place. Further, the age to drink and smoke is much lower in every other country in the world with little to no correlatible ill effect. I would support the lowering, even the elimination of age restrictions on such things so long as parental authority is not undermined to set the standard of behavior for their children. And if your kids are hanging with heroin addicts/pushers or pimps, you have problems that no law is likely to solve, save for when CPS makes your kids wards of the state.
I also disagree with statutory rape laws insofar as precocious kids sexually experimenting consensually with those their own age should not result in criminal charges. Further I think it is deplorable that teenagers are getting sex offender records for "distributing child porn" for sending lewd pictures of themselves to each other. There should be protection of children from sexual advances of people significantly older for the simple reason that there is too much potential to exploit authority and naivete where significant age differences are involved.
I think you are mistaking me for a different kind of parent.
I think that the exclusion of criminal behavior is normally assumed.
The difference between de jure and de facto boundaries is incredibly important. Where a control is only a de facto implementation by a society or corporation, it allows for change and competing ideas much more easily. When a control is de jure it is necessarily a legal precedent that will generate case law, even if the law is repealed (a rarity) that case law may still be referenced in future decisions, and if the law stands and is enforced it can easily become a slippery slope justification for worse legislation.
You understand, that this argument here, itself, is us being "part of a village" taking care of our kids. The very communication itself, I mean.
I am dismissing, with cause, the advice being rendered. While I may be incidentally part of this hypothetical 'village', the participation in this case heretofore is ultimately unidirectional in effect.
Oh, and the people that I hire to watch my kid I trust as far as I can throw the background check that I did on them. Put that due diligence in your pipe and smoke it.
While I don't agree with banning games, toys, or guns, to be fair, it's almost impossible to save yourself from a violent home invasion with a copy of GTA4. (And further, there is a certain rationale, even if I don't agree with it, to banning toy guns... if during a police action a toy gun which has been altered to look more realistic is spotted the possessor may just get dropped by a justifiably anxious officer.)
Apparently you have a very narrow view of 'sexual violence'. Ever heard of BDSM? Some people do actually like and mutually consent to 'violent' sexual behavior, and this is unassailably morally superior to any kind of involuntary violence (and no, while reenacting historical battles may be enriching in some dimensions, it is not a voluntary event where one soldier asks the other if he would kindly please kill him).
It should be left to parents, not the state, to determine when and how their children are exposed and educated to these matters. I realize of course that the way this poll was worded the parents are still given an option, but I consider this a slippery slope. It's a law that would be unnecessary in cases where parents are already acting responsibly, and a law which is moot if the parents are irresponsible, but it still acts as a precedent for more draconian legislation down the road while achieving no positive effects in the immediate term.