Are we seeing the demise of violent video games ?

[Happy29]

(A Special edition of Happy's Weekly Rant)

As reported on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country", The state of Washington recently put a law into motion that prohibits the sale of video games to people under the age of 17. People under the age of 17 will be required to provide parental permission (again, in the state of Washington) to purchase any video games that are in high standing of the Rating committee. A $500 fine will go to the store as the Penalty for selling these games This law with the staunch support from Governor Gary Locke (D) of Washington shows that Liberals and Conservatives are willing to work together to battle the enemy of mass-marketed violence.

However, Happy has to put the roadblock somewhere. And it starts at the beginning of this argument. For one, American Civil Liberties Groups and Free-Thinking Artists will be all over this issue like Bees on Honey. One of the questions which will be asked are "Will this new act limit the Freedom of Expression and the Right to Press ?" and " Is this too overzealous of an act ?". Happy says ... yes. These bureaucrats are too lazy to instead promote parents to watch their children more carefully and instead are becoming the parents themselves. Games like Grand Theft Auto and Mortal Kombat are not all representative of the higher-rated, more suggestive video game community. There are games like Final Fantasy, The Sims (whose company I oh so ... too long of a story), Lord of the Rings, Medevil and other games you can list in your responses. Do other these games promote spilling blood and promoting bloody rebellion ?

I thought so. Now, listen to the solution. Washington (not the state but our nation's Capital) instead needs to promote parents to instead have control over their children and that parents should do the (sorry for the repetition) parenting of their own children and not some Congressman or Congresswoman or some Governor. Finally, these games promote a way for children to express their problems in a less dangerous way. Explain to me one real shred of evidence that any new game made past "DOOM" has encouraged bloodshed or juvenile insubordination. With this, the problem is solved and we don't need to waste anymore time on this issue than we already have. There... (deep breath)

[Airhog]

I sure hope not

[condors]

i voted yes, ever drink underage? it was alot more fun then it was when i turned 21

ever see a playboy before you were allowed?

to make something against the law doesn't stop it from happening

I know if a was 14 and heard you have to be 18 to play these games i would get someone to get them for me because i got to see what i am not allowed to.

[Samdari]

I don't see limiting the sale of Mature video games as any different than restricting R rated movies. I really just don't see the problem here.

[WussGawd]

Personally, I don't see any difference between doing this and limiting minors' access to porn, R-rated films or alcohol. I don't allow my 7 & 10 year old boys to play M-Rated games.

The trouble with those in the somewhat moronic "parents should take responsibility for their kids" camp is that many parents don't, and the rest of us have to deal with those consequences.

For example, Dylan Klebold and that other moron at Columbine were frequent Doom/Quake players, and what did their inbred parents do about it?

While the evidence is not conclusive that violent games/films beget violent behavior (and I suspect that for a lot of kids, there's not much of a connection at all), I've seen enough first hand evidence with my own son (who is ADHD & has depression), that I believe it can in a kid whose already a little unhinged.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Happy29
(A Special edition of Happy's Weekly Rant)

I thought so. Now, listen to the solution. Washington (not the state but our nation's Capital) instead needs to promote parents to instead have control over their children and that parents should do the (sorry for the repetition) parenting of their own children and not some Congressman or Congresswoman or some Governor. Finally, these games promote a way for children to express their problems in a less dangerous way. Explain to me one real shred of evidence that any new game made past "DOOM" has encouraged bloodshed or juvenile insubordination. With this, the problem is solved and we don't need to waste anymore time on this issue than we already have. There... (deep breath)

OK, Happy. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

The trouble with the Bullsh** conservative "parents should take responsibility for their kids" argument is that not all parents do!

I spoke on this in my other post, but there are some preliminary studies showing a link. No the evidence is not conclusive, but frankly, the evidence may never be. A large percentage of underage drinkers become alcoholic. Do all of them? Certainly not. I would suspect the same can be said of the link between violent video games and kids.

As for a real shred of evidence, I'd like to present my son, Alexander. A decent kid, he's 10. At age 6-7 he was talking about killing himself, and was serious. Since, we've learned he has ADHD & Depression (he's being treated for both). Now that he's under treatment, he's a lot better. He still has rough days (yesterday was one), but overall, he's a sweet, caring individual.

I *personally* have found a direct link between his own violent behavior as a result of exposure to violent video games (was letting him play Diablo II for a while, until he got out of control with it) and violent films, sometimes not even R-rated films. Needless to say, he doesn't play D2 anymore, nor any other M-rated games. Truth be told, I limit his exposure to violent films and games of the PG-13/Teen Rating at this point. I have *seen* the difference with him, and you would too, if you were around him.

Now, let's consider what would have happened if a child like Alexander had been raised by a couple of half-bred parents who couldn't recognize the problems (and trust me there are a lot of parents out there like this, I see them everytime I attend one of my kids school functions). They don't get the kid help, and are too wrapped up in themselves to do anything about limiting access to the stuff. I shudder to think how Alexander would have turned out with the parents of Dylan Klebold, for example. Heck, sometimes I wonder whether I'm doing a good job, and I'm conscientious.

Now are you going to tell the parents of the 20 some odd kids killed at Columbine that their taking responsibility for their kids would have prevented their kids being killed by a couple of assholes with shotguns whose parents probably didn't do much more than watch television and snort lines while their sons played Quake and bought guns?

If so, I think you need to seriously rethink your rant.

[Fritz]

I say Fuck EA and Fuck the Sims!


----
Honestly, I don't have any problem with a movie style rating that bars kids from buying some games.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Fritz
I say Fuck EA and Fuck the Sims!

ROFL.

However, in Sim-speak, that would be "Play in Bed" EA and "Play in Bed" with the Sims...since Sims don't officially f*ck.

[stkelly52]

One of the questions which will be asked are "Will this new act limit the Freedom of Expression and the Right to Press ?" and " Is this too overzealous of an act ?".

Actually that is two questions, but I'll leave that one alone.

This does nothing to limit freedom of expression. The kids can still get the games and paly them all thatt hey want they just need perental permission. What is the big dea? And "Right to Press"? What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? This has nothing to do with the press. Finally it is no more overzealous than not allowing kids to see R and NC17 movies. What is the problem with it?

[Fritz]

Strictly speaking, minor children should have a parent's permission to do, see, or read anything. The difference here is that the proposal would require proof of explicit permission.

[sabotai]

"Now are you going to tell the parents of the 20 some odd kids killed at Columbine that their taking responsibility for their kids would have prevented their kids being killed by a couple of assholes with shotguns whose parents probably didn't do much more than watch television and snort lines while their sons played Quake and bought guns?"

Damn you're ignorant.

[tucker342]

No, it's limiting freedom and parents should be responsible for their own children.

[Happy29]

Wussdawg, I'd like to say that you present a well-rounded argument. However, I'm one of those people that would rather see results and not see them on a piece of paper. Repeating my point, I still haven't seen one shred of evidence that video games cause people to shoot others and shoot policemen and women. Hell, I'm still awaiting this day that these bureaucrats predict will come when some person shoots a cop solely to mimic Grand Theft Auto, and frankly, I'm still waiting. Has that day come yet? Your conducting of the experiment on your son Alexander is a great point, but not every kid has Alexander's personality and profile. The answer to that ? It's the parents that should do the parenting because they know their child and not the government.

Another answer to one of the points Wussdawg makes about the Columbine issue. I can't answer for the victim's parents, I can't answer for those two idiots who shot and killed more than 20 people and their parents. But, then again, if their parents actually got involved into their lives and actually monitored what their kids were doing and stopped them from doing it, Columbine wouldnt be in our minds like it is today. And no, violence doesn't spawn more violence as long as the parents step in , It's just TV . Would anyone set a bomb in a major city like on 24 ? No. They wouldnt.

[Airhog]

Its not as classy when you cant post good stuff tucker, oh how am I kidding, I have no morals

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Now are you going to tell the parents of the 20 some odd kids killed at Columbine that their taking responsibility for their kids would have prevented their kids being killed by a couple of assholes with shotguns whose parents probably didn't do much more than watch television and snort lines while their sons played Quake and bought guns?"

Damn you're ignorant.

Gee, thanks for the ad hominem attack.

I'd like to also thank you for adding nothing useful to the discussion.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by tucker342
No, it's limiting freedom and parents should be responsible for their own children.

The courts have never recognized, nor given total freedom for children. That's why they're minors.

As for the arguments that this stifles creative expression, those have about as much supporting evidence as my arguments about a link between violent video games and kids (in fact, the evidence of censorship re. minors argues to the contrary).

If you want some anecdotal evidence, consider that Matrix: Reloaded just had one of the best box office opening weekends in history despite an R rating.

I do not, and never would argue that M rated games shouldn't be made...heck, I've enjoyed games like the Gabriel Knight series, Ghost Recon, Doom, Quake, and others over the years to ever want to see that. For that matter, if I think my 13 year old kid is mature enough to handle Quake III, or Half-Life, I probably wouldn't be opposed to buying it for him.

My point is that society bombards kids with so many messages, and so many things at such a young age that they aren't ready for, that parents need help, need to be given the tools to make those decisions.

I go back to Columbine, not because it is the only example of kids being violent (such stories are sadly a part of daily news, in large cities). I use Columbine because it's a story most people know.

My point with Columbine, the only point I'm trying to make in all this is that 30-something people, mostly teenagers died. They died because, at a very basic level, two, not thirty, sets of parents, failed to take an active role in their children's development. For this, twenty-something parents have only memories and photographs of children that would be going to college now, might be getting married in a couple of cases, might even be graduated from college by now.

Did they die because Dylan Klebold and the other kid played Quake? I would not go so far as to make that assessment. Was the fact that they played Quake part of a set of possible signals that could have led to the conclusion that there was a streak of violence in their nature? Yes, clearly, it was.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Happy29
Wussdawg, I'd like to say that you present a well-rounded argument.

Similarly, I'd like to thank you for what is obviously a well thought out opinion that you hold passionately (you hardly do it justice by calling it a rant, btw).

However, I'm one of those people that would rather see results and not see them on a piece of paper. Repeating my point, I still haven't seen one shred of evidence that video games cause people to shoot others and shoot policemen and women. Hell, I'm still awaiting this day that these bureaucrats predict will come when some person shoots a cop solely to mimic Grand Theft Auto, and frankly, I'm still waiting. Has that day come yet? Your conducting of the experiment on your son Alexander is a great point, but not every kid has Alexander's personality and profile. The answer to that ? It's the parents that should do the parenting because they know their child and not the government.

OK. Let's take a step back from the video game issue, because it's automatically a hot button with what is, after all, a gaming community.

Imagine yourself a parent. How would you feel about your 13 year old being able to walk up to the counter at the local Wal-Mart, and being able to whip out his or her wallet and buy any of the following:

A) A gun.
B) Spray paint
C) Gay Pornography (I use gay as an example not to bash what is after all, a matter of biology, but to press a hot button)
D) A keg of beer.
E) A case of cigarettes.

How would you feel about said store owner?

I might point out, that in probably every community in America, all of these are prohibited activities for a storekeeper to sell to a minor, all of them could lead to fines (and in many locales, jail time) for the store owner. I might point out that there are at least as many First Amendment issues related to selling Playgirl (or Playboy, for that matter) to a minor, yet I seriously doubt any parent on this board is going to react positively to seeing their eight year old son with a gay men's magazine, regardless of their views on the subject.

Another answer to one of the points Wussdawg makes about the Columbine issue. I can't answer for the victim's parents, I can't answer for those two idiots who shot and killed more than 20 people and their parents. But, then again, if their parents actually got involved into their lives and actually monitored what their kids were doing and stopped them from doing it, Columbine wouldnt be in our minds like it is today. And no, violence doesn't

No, Columbine would still be on their minds today. I can assure you that 20-something parents did not neglect their children's lives in Littleton, CO. Maybe five or six did. The point is, it only took two sets of parents to be absolutely irresponsible to lead to Columbine. This is my entire point. As a result, 35 lives were ended that day, and 35 folks lost a loved one, or a son or daughter.

Would anyone set a bomb in a major city like on 24 ? No. They wouldnt.

Why not? Somebody thought up taking four airplanes and crashing them into landmarks about five years ago. Sometimes kids just go bad, no matter how hard you try. Giving them easy ways to go bad is socially irresponsible.

As a parent, I don't want violent games taken off the market (heck, I play some of them). I'd just like reasonable assurances that (short of short-circuiting the system, anyway) I'm going to have a chance to get involved when my son decides he wants to get Half-Life 2.

[EagleFan]

I agree with WG on this one. It's no different than not allowing a minor to buy an R-Rated movie.

Hell, if I had a son (double standard to follow), I would rather hear that he bought a Playboy instead of a violent video game. I think there's a little less harm in seeing a naked woman at that point than learning how to blow a cop's head off. Now for my daughter, I don't want her buying a Playgirl or that kind of video game when she's a teenager.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by EagleFan
I agree with WG on this one. It's no different than not allowing a minor to buy an R-Rated movie.

Hell, if I had a son (double standard to follow), I would rather hear that he bought a Playboy instead of a violent video game. I think there's a little less harm in seeing a naked woman at that point than learning how to blow a cop's head off. Now for my daughter, I don't want her buying a Playgirl or that kind of video game when she's a teenager.

Although there is an entirely different subset of beliefs on porn (which I'm ambivalent about, with the exception of child porn, to be honest), I would have to agree with this sentiment. My sons are a lot more likely for me to look the other way when they thumb through my neighbor's stash of Playboys than they are when they come over to the house to play GTA: Vice City.

I suspect a psychologist might have fun with your double-standard re. a hypothetical daughter. I am also grateful I won't personally have to see if I had a similar double-standard. I have two sons, and courtesy of a urologist, it would take a medical miracle for me to have a daughter.

[sabotai]

"Gee, thanks for the ad hominem attack.

I'd like to also thank you for adding nothing useful to the discussion."

First, you need to learn what an ad hominem is.

Second, I'd like to thank you for displaying the level of ignorance matched only by those like Jerry Falwell and Pat Ropertson. A couple of kids kill some fellow students, so the parents HAD to have ignored their kids while doing nothing but watching TV and snorting coke.

"They died because, at a very basic level, two, not thirty, sets of parents, failed to take an active role in their children's development"

You don't know that. You have no idea how involved their parents were in their lives. Just because a tennager kills someone, that does not mean their parents were negletful. And just because parents are activly involved in their kid's life does not mean their kid isn't capable of murder. There are a million things that could set off a kid and send them into a downward spiral while giving little sign of what is happening.

Sure, it helps if parents are involved in their kid's life. It'll definatly help a lot. But it is in no way an immunity to what could happen.

"Was the fact that they played Quake part of a set of possible signals that could have led to the conclusion that there was a streak of violence in their nature? Yes, clearly, it was."

What about the million other 17 and 18 year olds out there that played Quake. Obviously, if playing Quake is a clear signal of coming violence, then about a million kids need to get rushed to a psychologist right away.

[WussGawd]

[quote]Originally posted by sabotai

"Was the fact that they played Quake part of a set of possible signals that could have led to the conclusion that there was a streak of violence in their nature? Yes, clearly, it was."

What about the million other 17 and 18 year olds out there that played Quake. Obviously, if playing Quake is a clear signal of coming violence, then about a million kids need to get rushed to a psychologist right away.

No, Quake alone, as stated in another post, isn't to blame. Would I be concerned if my kid was posting death threats on a personal web site, buying guns by the score, playing violent video games, and pretty much cutting himself off from contact with most of his peers (as all happened at Columbine), yes, I think I would be.

[sabotai]

"No, Quake alone, as stated in another post, isn't to blame. Would I be concerned if my kid was posting death threats on a personal web site, buying guns by the score, playing violent video games, and pretty much cutting himself off from contact with most of his peers (as all happened at Columbine), yes, I think I would be."

And all of which could easily be done without the kid's parents knowing no matter how involved in their lives they are.

I would say my parents were involved in my life when I was a teenager.

1) It's extrememly easy to post things on the internet and not have anyone know about it. I know, I post all kinds of shit that my parents never found out about. I could have thrown death threats in there too.

2) If I had access to guns, I know when my parents are home and when they are not. I could have easily snuck them in the house and hid them. I smoked cigarettes and weed as a teenager and my parents never knew. LOTS of kids hide drugs and cigarettes successfully from their parents. Why is guns different?

3) Millions of other people play violent video games. I played a ton of them for as long as I can remember. I've also seen violent movies and tv shows since I can remember.

4) I had few freinds growing up.

I would argue that the first two are easily hidable from parents, and thus no matter how involved they were, they still wouldn't know about it. The last 2 I don't think are even connected to it.

Along with your assignment of finding out what an ad hom really is, I'll also add that you should look up non sequitur and post hoc.

[sabotai]

Ok, I'm sorry. I think I have been out of line earlier. I'm very cranky right now and I don't mean to take it out on you Wuss. I take back all the ignorance insults I threw your way.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by sabotai
Along with your assignment of finding out what an ad hom really is, I'll also add that you should look up non sequitur and post hoc.

Your own personal anecdotes go no further in disproving a conclusion (violent video games equals real-life violence), which, by the way, I never advanced, than my own admittedly lame original reference to Columbine went toward proving it.

I am well aware of the definition of non sequitur, thank you very much. Not that you've disproven my original contention, which by the way, was about the need for parents to be given the tools to assist in what is, after all, a legal and societal duty to properly raise their kids.

As for your points #3 & #4. I never denied that "millions of people play violent video games with no ill effects. My contention is that some younger children would be best off not being exposed to that level of violence, whether it be in the form of games, movies, or what have you and not all parents are responsible enough to do that (or aware of what is going on). I think it perfectly reasonable to expect adults to card my adolescent son when he wants to buy an M-rated video game, the same way I'd hope they wouldn't sell him a pack of cigarettes.

I've personally seen kids age 4 and 5 dragged into R-rated movies, and listened to a couple of kids not much older sitting in the row behind me terrified because their parents had dragged them to see The Matrix: Reloaded, a movie I wouldn't have dreamed of dragging my kids to go see.


#4. I also had few friends growing up, but that is not what I said. I said "cut themselves off from contact with most of their peers."

No, I didn't have a lot of deep friendships in high school, but I certainly didn't shut off all contact either. To sum up, I'd suggest you read my post a little more closely before flying off the handle.


As for your points 1 & 2, I can tell you that my parents would have learned if I'd been smoking weed or cigarettes, or sneaking guns into my bedroom. We weren't afforded the same amount of privacy you apparently were (or at least, my parents weren't living in as deep a state of denial). We can argue over who had the better set of parents (I honestly can't speak intelligently on the subject, since I haven't walked a mile in your shoes), but frankly I think parental styles have to be adjusted to fit the kid, so it really doesn't matter much.

In any case, your anecdotal evidence is no stronger than mine, and I see little point in continuing a discussion laced with such vitriol, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by sabotai
Ok, I'm sorry. I think I have been out of line earlier. I'm very cranky right now and I don't mean to take it out on you Wuss. I take back all the ignorance insults I threw your way.

OK. Apology accepted, and returned. I do regret my original analogy, which, upon further review, was possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever said/written (and that's saying something).

I understand that you are passionate about this subject. Frankly, I admire anyone so passionate about anything. It's so rare to see it in anybody in this age of whiny, political correctness.

You know, in many ways, our opinions here pretty much mirror the spectrum. I don't think it unreasonable for parents to be able to limit their kids' access to violence, and to seek some legal recourse for this.

I am, at heart, an optimist. The vast majority of parents are pretty responsible in raising their kids (not perfect mind you, but who is). I'm also quite certain that the majority of people wouldn't be irresponsible enough to ring up a GTA:Vice City sale for my ten year old boy. The trouble lies with the few bad apples, as always.

At the same time, I'm an aspiring writer. Used to be an actor back in the day. I feel strongly about censorship issues. I don't think this is a censorship issue. I see it as a societal issue. Nobody here is talking about keeping M-rated games out of the hands of adults (believe me, if they were I'd be grabbing a pitchfork and marching on Washington right with you).

[sabotai]

"Frankly, I admire anyone so passionate about anything. It's so rare to see it in anybody in this age of whiny, political correctness."

Stick around for awhile and you'll see that PCism pisses me off more than just about anything.