Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

[Locke]

First of all, guns don't kill people, the people holding them do. Aside from that, I really see no issue with putting an age limit on buying games in the same way they do on rated R movies. The big problem is that we keep expecting the government to fix our parenting mistakes and responsibilities for us.

They already have them, though. They just need to be enforced. It sounds like that's what this bill is doing, just adding fines for not following the rating system...

[tylerdolphin]

First of all, guns don't kill people, the people holding them do. Aside from that, I really see no issue with putting an age limit on buying games in the same way they do on rated R movies. The big problem is that we keep expecting the government to fix our parenting mistakes and responsibilities for us.

Well yeah, obviously the people are pulling the trigger. But the argument is that limiting the access to assault weapons would lower the death toll when psychos go nuts.

My only problem with the age limit thing is that defining what exactly is an 18+ game is pretty subjective. But then again, sales probably wouldnt decrease much at all because most kids buying "violent" video games are doing so with their parent's knowledge anyway. Anyone can get a parent or a cousin to get it for them.

[TheWalrus]

First of all, guns don't kill people, the people holding them do.

The problem with that argument is you can say the same thing about bombs and bazookas.

At some point personal responsibility stops being enough because the damage from misuse outweighs the generalize benefits you get by having a freer society. Perhaps you don't think guns are dangerous enough to cross that line, but these mass shootings are moving the needle on that argument.

Aside from that, I really see no issue with putting an age limit on buying games in the same way they do on rated R movies. The big problem is that we keep expecting the government to fix our parenting mistakes and responsibilities for us.

Movie ratings are an absolute joke. Jack Valenti -- who as president of the MPAA created them -- was a horrible human being. Nothing logical can come from trying to apply their standards to other things.

[tylerdolphin]

Movie ratings are an absolute joke. Jack Valenti -- who as president of the MPAA created them -- was a horrible human being. Nothing logical can come from trying to apply their standards to other things.

You really can't top the Bahamas movie rating standards. I remember being 16 or 17 and unable to see a super-hero movie, I want to say it was spider man, in theaters because the ratings people (who are basically an extension of the Bahamas Christian Council) determined in all their wisdom that nobody under 18 could watch this movie because of language and violence. So they essentially wiped out half the target audience for the movie and caused the theater a ton of money. **** like that is fairly common.

[Spesh]

Sometimes I seriously wonder about you, where did I ever say I support the video game legislation? I certainly do not. I care about both the 1^st and 2^nd Amendments unlike you; please don’t hate me for being more consistent in my views than you are.

Oh? You have no objection with people saying whatever they want, even if children have access to the things they stand for?

[Statler Waldorf]

I understand the point you are making, but I in my opinion its not an even comparison.

Video games do not kill anyone. Assault rifles do. They kill more people faster than a handgun or a shotgun can. The "you dont need video the same as you dont need assault rifles" argument doesnt work because the argument isnt to ban them just because they arent needed. The argument is to ban them because they are both unnecessary AND dangerous. Same reason we arent allowed to own a military RPG.

Now if you want to argue that you are OK with whatever inherent risks there are with keeping assualt weapons legal because its the price we pay for that freedom, thats a valid argument. To compare them to owning a video game...not so much IMO.

Thanks for the response Tyler, here are some thoughts I have on it…

1. If video games and assault rifles are not a fair comparison, then would you agree that comparing an semi-automatic rifle to an RPG is also not a fair comparison?
2. I have heard people make the same argument you are making here about assault rifles about pornography, it’s not needed and can be dangerous because it objectifies women (Ted Bundy even made this argument), but I am not for banning pornography. Many of our freedoms are not necessary and can be dangerous when abused, the key is educating people on how to use them responsibly. The assault rifle, that I may or may not own, will never be used it any such killing. I know how to use it safely and when I am not using it is locked away.
3. All of this talk about how America’s violence is somehow a result of gun ownership makes me very queasy, the same argument could be made to reinstitute the Motion Picture Production Code in order to censor our movies and games, after all violence in America was far lower while the code was in effect even though more Americans owned guns during that time period (1930-1968). I just don’t think the ends justify the means.

Your thoughts?

[Statler Waldorf]

Oh? You have no objection with people saying whatever they want, even if children have access to the things they stand for?

You're going to have to be more specific because I am not sure what you're talking about. I do not support the video game legislation or the assault weapons legislation, neither will solve the problem.

[Valandui]

The problem with that argument is you can say the same thing about bombs and bazookas.

At some point personal responsibility stops being enough because the damage from misuse outweighs the generalize benefits you get by having a freer society. Perhaps you don't think guns are dangerous enough to cross that line, but these mass shootings are moving the needle on that argument.



Movie ratings are an absolute joke. Jack Valenti -- who as president of the MPAA created them -- was a horrible human being. Nothing logical can come from trying to apply their standards to other things.

I actually agree with the position all of you share on this, except for the gun thing where we seem diametrically opposed. What is considered appropriate is entirely subjective. The biggest problem is the government's attempt to legislate morality. That having been said, video games are way more influential on a person's mental state than a movie is and if you're going require an age limit on one, I don't really see an issue with doing it on video games.

[Wildbill3]

Sorry, I cannot and will not agree with ANY measure that changes our bill of rights. I do however recognize YOUR right to voice your opinion on the matter.

[Spesh]

You're going to have to be more specific because I am not sure what you're talking about. I do not support the video game legislation or the assault weapons legislation, neither will solve the problem.

So it needs to be specific? Your dont mind censorship, you just mind it when video games are censored?

For someone who strives for consistency, thats not very consistent. Id image any first amendment loving individual would be opposed to any attempts at censoring a person expressing their viewpoints. Oh well, guess its back to safeguarding the second amendment by fire bombing the first amendment.