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.
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.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.
Thanks for the response Tyler, here are some thoughts I have on itÖ
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, itís 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 Americaís 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 donít think the ends justify the means.
Perseverance of the Saints
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.
"I didn't feel like we had to score," Tannehill said. "I had the mindset we were going to score."
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.