Obviously I am quite terrified by the prospect of not being able to play violent games anymore as should you.
People who support this law do it for reasons like I suppose it is teaching our kids violent things even though there is no research to back this up. Most people polled said they would give the industry a negative rating.
" These responses seem contrary to findings from the Federal Trade Commission: In November, a report from the FTC stated that "The electronic game industry continues to have the strongest self-regulatory code," and that "compliance with [that] code was high in all media."
Also if the law does pass then the states of Connecticut,Florida,Hawaii,Illinois which is where I live,Louisiana,Maryland,Michigan,Minnesota,Mississippi,Texas, and Virginia will also try to pass similar laws.
People against the law claim that it violates the first amendment.
I would love to know what you think so post some stuff about it.
This is from the article in Game Informer
"We think government efforts should be focused on joining with us to ensure greater understanding and use of our system,because it's the parents-not the government,and not the gaming industry-that should make decisions about what games are suitable for their children"
Once again please place your thoughts below and explain why you think it should be a law or not.
Oh honestly, the UK has had legislation on the sale of video games to minors for absolutely ages. It's not exactly a big thing. Stop being all 'it infringes my rights wahhhh' - the US constitution AND Bill of Rights could do with a complete rewrite if we're being honest - people find loopholes and meanings in the vagueness of the documents and hide behind them and scream about 'infringing of rights' when the laws are changed in a way that they don't like. How on earth can you claim that documents which are centuries old are still relevant today?? You guys can't even have a proper air-force because they didn't have aeroplanes a few centuries back /rant.
Oh honestly, the UK has had legislation on the sale of video games to minors for absolutely ages. It's not exactly a big thing. Stop being all 'it infringes my rights wahhhh' - the US constitution AND Bill of Rights could do with a complete rewrite if we're being honest - people find loopholes and meanings in the vagueness of the documents and hide behind them and scream about 'infringing of rights' when the laws are changed in a way that they don't like. How on earth can you claim that documents which are centuries old are still relevant today?? You guys can't even have a proper air-force because they didn't have aeroplanes a few centuries back /rant.
Hey dude were talking about video games stop hating on the US.
I love the US - I just despise a significant proportion of the people in it - republicans, New Rightists, Tea-baggers, Pro-lifers aaaand Rednecks.
Back on topic - until a link is proven or disproven between violence in video games and aggression levels in children then it is probably best to err on the side of caution and restrict the sales of highly violent video games to minors.
Back on topic - until a link is proven or disproven between violence in video games and aggression levels in children then it is probably best to err on the side of caution and restrict the sales of highly violent video games to minors.
Dude there is no evedince that supports violent video games making kids more violent it is actually the opposite.
Really Holt? Here is an Abstract that suggests otherwise:
Abstract
Video games have become one of the favorite activities of American children. A growing body of research is linking violent video game play to aggressive cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. The first goal of this study was to document the video games habits of adolescents and the level of parental monitoring of adolescent video game use. The second goal was to examine associations among violent video game exposure, hostility, arguments with teachers, school grades, and physical fights. In addition, path analyses were conducted to test mediational pathways from video game habits to outcomes. Six hundred and seven 8th- and 9th-grade students from four schools participated. Adolescents who expose themselves to greater amounts of video game violence were more hostile, reported getting into arguments with teachers more frequently, were more likely to be involved in physical fights, and performed more poorly in school. Mediational pathways were found such that hostility mediated the relationship between violent video game exposure and outcomes. Results are interpreted within and support the framework of the General Aggression Model.
There are several other articles on Google Scholar that support this evidence too.
Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.
Experimental hypothesis - Violent video games increase violent behaviour in children Null hypothesis - Video games have no effect on violent behaviour in children Independent variable - Violent video games played Dependent variable - Violent behaviour in children Extraneous variables - normal aggression level, distractions, enivronment and attention span Target population - children aged 7-14 Group size - 500 children within target age group Random sampling Field experiment Quantitive data Use of confederates? No.
Shall I go and do that now? Then we'll see who's right.
Like I said if there was research backing up the claim that violent video games increase violence in children then I may be more sympathetic to the law but until then I believe it is the parent's decision if they want to allow there kids to play violent video games.
I'm with Avorne on this one. Everytime something happens in America people claim it is "infringing" on their rights as Americans. I would like to know something, how can change for the greater good be brought about when everytime someone tries to change something you have people screaming about their "rights". Americans have more "rights" than any other country I know of. You know what America has? It's a privellage! There's a bloody difference. Americans are not entitled to everything they think they are. Personally this law is moot in my opinion, but the bigger issue here is not the law, but the sheer arrogance of the American people and their so called "rights"
I'm with Avorne on this one. Everytime something happens in America people claim it is "infringing" on their rights as Americans. I would like to know something, how can change for the greater good be brought about when everytime someone tries to change something you have people screaming about their "rights". Americans have more "rights" than any other country I know of. You know what America has? It's a privellage! There's a bloody difference. Americans are not entitled to everything they think they are. Personally this law is moot in my opinion, but the bigger issue here is not the law, but the sheer arrogance of the American people and their so called "rights"
You're angry at us for not wanting our freedoms taken away because we have too much freedom?
I'm angry because you assume you assume everything that goes against what you believe is an infringement on your so called "rights". Let me give you an example. Let us say you have a heart condition, let's say it needs to be fixed, it can be fixed but you do not have the money to cover the operation. Are you entitled to having your medical condition looked after? If the answer is "No" then I ask why are you not entitled to this?
I'm angry because you assume you assume everything that goes against what you believe is an infringement on your so called "rights". Let me give you an example. Let us say you have a heart condition, let's say it needs to be fixed, it can be fixed but you do not have the money to cover the operation. Are you entitled to having your medical condition looked after? If the answer is "No" then I ask why are you not entitled to this?
Well I certainly don't want this to turn into a healthcare thread and I've said before that debating that subject is best left in the hands of someone who understands it more than me.
Don't pretend to know everything that goes on. If we disagree with something you can't just say that we disagree with it because of our rights though that may be the case. You are generalizing this thread to include all rights when it is only about this one.
Cant be bothered to read all the pages, but, violent video game sales to minors has always been banned here as far as I know, and young people still play them.. It's down to the parents in the end, if they buy it for you, fine, but I think you shouldn't be allowed to buy them by yourself.
So, yeah ban the sale, they can't really ban the use, it would be too hard to enforce, but it would stop kids buying it without parents permission.
I certainly think there are a number of video games that a person under the age of 18 should not have access. I do not agree with EXTREME censorship, but I do agree with shielding some of the nonsense from kids.
So, depending on the principals of this proposed law, I'd have to see them.
