I agree with you Ken. The last thing I want to see is the government taking the role of omni-parent. But I have to disagree (with both of us) when I consider how unsupervised the kids are these days. I live in an affluent neighborhood where all the kids have $50 and more in their pockets and both parents work and have very little time for their kids. I do think TV/movies/games have caused many kids to become callous to violence and really present a bad image of the role of women.

How do we expect society to be polite if we are not raised on politeness?

Let's make very clear what this bill is doing. It's making each and every store that sells video games (but not movies, they've had their day in court) a parent because the real parents aren't doing their job.

Hey, I'm sorry if you're working three jobs to support your kids. Should have thought about that before you had the kids. It's not TV/movies/games fault. It's an example of society blaming everything on something other than themselves. Take responsibility, that's your job. Finding a scapegoat doesn't do anything. Think of it this way:

"No little Johnny, you can't have that video game because the government says so."

You're telling me he's not going to want that game even more now? Of course, then they'll just blame the games again saying they were marketed to kids.

Matt - affluent means rich. All these kids have all the game consoles and no supervision. I agree with you the responsibility is on the parents. What do you do when the parents fail to parent and the kids grow up to be aggressive, rude, and disrespectful to women?

Retirement is (should be!) the responsibility of the individual but what do you do when the retiree fails to plan for his retirement? The government steps in and provides a basic, no frills retirement plan. Much as I hate to say it I think we do need the regulation on these games. I watch my kids like a hawk but I know my kids friends have way too much freedom and spare time. The violence and language of these games should be kept from kids.

See, the problem here is that it's hypocritical to focus on games Maurice. If we're going to regulate games, do the same for movies. While your at it, select books that are innapropriate for kids. I can't tell you how much worse a book can be than either of the previous mention mediums. Should GTA be kept away from a kid? Of course, but that's NOT my responsibility as a retail clerk to monitor what your kids buy.

Why is there nothing being worked on to regulate books and movies? Games are an exploding industry, parents don't get it, they're not paying attention, and they supposedly cause kids to kill (focus on supposedly). It's another example of older people who try and analyze what's wrong with this generation, just like it was with comic books, then Dungeons and Dragons, and rap music before. There's always something new that's causing the downfall of society and now it's gaming. That's all these attacks are. We have far more important things to worry about.

I don't see how your retirement example applies here at all. It's a completely different situation. This is a freedom of speech/downfall of society type of debate.

Matt -

I agree with your comments completely. If we are going to have some sort of baseline limit on games it should be consistent through other media forms (movies, books, etc). We do have these baseline limits with certain things like cigarettes.

Also I agree that parents need to be more proactive in monitering their own children/teens. As a father of 5 I am keenly aware of what my kids watch, listen to, and play. In a perfect world all parents would pay attention to what their kids are doing.

I also agree that gaming is not causing the downfall of society. I do think kids can be adversely affected by media of all sorts. Particularly violence and debasing women. If you doubt that concept you probably don't believe advertising works. I don't relish the idea of government as parent-in-abstentia but I do think it is important enough for some minmum restraint by law.

Perhaps my earlier retirement example was a bad analogy but I was just trying to illustrate that sometimes it is a good thing when government picks up the slack left over by individuals.

Can kids be affected by media? Sure. The question is why they're affected. Who's the parent that didn't instill morals about women into their children? Who's the parent that didn't instill the diffrence between fantasy and reality in their child? If it affects kids, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why millions of kids play games yet all of 4 cause major problems.

I hope they do restrict game sales. The mature game rating is for ages 17 or older. In my opinion, these sales are no different than restricting minors from alcohol, cigarettes, and pornography.


While I consider myself a fairly informed parent that monitors their children, many parents do not. I am sure that some out there do not realize how graphic these games can be. By enforcing the rating and restricting the sales, the government is actually doing it's part to prevent under age viewing.

I don't know where in the heck the comment came from about the parent working three jobs. I am assuming it is a dig at the fact they should be home watching their children. Matt, since you have not experienced this, it is very unfair of you to judge. Any parent that is trying to make a good home for their children, even if it means that they have to work three jobs to make ends meet, should be applauded. There are too many people out there that don't work and are raising their kids on welfare.

Ken, I do disagree with you that an adolescent old enough to have $50 is old enough to play. Kids get money from grandparents, family, and friends. After a birthday or Christmas, my 11 year old typically has quite a bit of cash in his wallet, and he is in no way ready for M games. Usually, I am with him when he does any shopping. I would be quite upset if he bought an M game in my absence. Knowing the sale would be restricted would give me peace of mind.


I have to agree that some kids will get the games no matter what. Be it older siblings, family members, or friends, they will be able to find a buyer for them. How many young people do you know or remember that have been able to get alcohol before they were 21? It happens. The same will be true of games, but at least it will be more difficult. Perhaps it would even open up some adults eyes to the adult nature of the games and the idea of checking what their children are playing.

Stephanie, your second paragraph is exactly the point. Parents don't care. That's not my problem as an employee, that's not the governments problem, and that's not the game makers problem. There's no reason for anyone to be responsible but the parent. Quit grouping them with alcohol and cigarretes too. The games aren't killing people. Stupid people kill people.

The three jobs comment comes from the fact that this is a common excuse I hear all the time. Sure, you can't monitor them 24/7. That's fine. But how hard is it to come home and scan your kids game rack to see what he's playing or glance over at the TV? How hard is it to monitor how much money your 12 year old kid has? The answer to both is not very, but many parents don't. My parents were brutally strict with me and I didn't go anywhere without them knowing where I was and what I was doing. Now with cell phones and such, there's no excuse. I don't need to be a parent to understand that just like you don't need to be a hardcore gamer to be a part of this debate... or maybe you do.

This new law would do nothing to open up parents eyes that don't care just like the millions of ESRB flyers didn't, the mulitple attempts at this same law elsewhere didn't, the same way all the ridiculous news reports didn't, and the same way these repeated debates didn't. If a parent doesn't care, they don't care and not a damn thing is going to change that.

The same thing I deal with all the time will be the result. The angry, uncaring parent comes in and screams at me for not selling their 12-year old child Grand Theft Auto. Do they care even after I explain it? Nope. I'm immediataly stupid and they want corporates number. If they're dumb enough to let their kid play GTA, that's not my problem. If he's playing something like this at age 12, he's already lost. Playing GTA will hardly change the way he sees life.

No Matt, this becomes everyones problem. Desensitized children grow into adults that can be violent. Maybe this happens rarely, but if even one life is spared is that not enough? If one less teen feels it's O.K. to beat some girl (because he does it all the time in his games) is that not worth it? If you still want to evoke the games don't kill---neither does pornography and that is not legal for purchase by minors.

If the parents aren't responsible, someone must step in. I hope that the government does in this instance. I agree with you in the fact that there are many parents that do not care. The government needs to regulate sales. Look on the bright side, laws saying minors cannot purchase M games would ensure that parents would not be able to yell at you for not selling their child an inappropriate game.

One life won't be spared because video games don't kill people. Pornography doesn't make people have sex. Lets face it. We need to ban movies, games, books, magazines, newspapers, the nightly news, comics, music, and the internet too if we don't want kids exposed. Where is the line drawn?

If someone beats a girl, he has problems. That's certainly not the games fault. I've beaten countless women in video games and even more men. Do I actually do it in real life? No. I have common sense and morals. Who instills morals in a child? Do I even need to say it?

Who's to say it was from a game? Maybe he read a story in a newspaper and thought it would be cool to try it on his girlfriend. Should we prevent anyone from reading newspapers now too? See how absurd this all becomes?

All banning games does is make kids want them more. Do you honestly think if it wasn't for the ridiculous controversy, these games wouldn't be held in such high regard in the school yard? That's the only reason kids are drawn to them. People say it's the advertising. They're wrong. The more you tell a kid he can't have something, the more he wants it, period.

I think both sides have excellent points. Playing a violent video game doesn't make a person (regardless of age) do bad things. As shown in many studies there are many other factors that play a role in behavior. Can the game be one of these factors - absolutely. But so can many other things cartoons, other siblings, friends at school or even the 6 o'clock news.

I don't believe that one law is going to make a huge difference either way. They have had laws about selling cigarettes to under age persons and they keep cigarettes out of their hands. Under aged people who really wanted them could still get them. So, yes it helped. However, the biggest help was campaigns about the dangers of smoking and celebrities tell people that cigarettes were a health risk.

What really needs to happen for video games is similar to that of cigarettes. It needs to be pointed out the youth that what they see and do in video games isn't neccessarily OK in the real world. There should be a greater focus on these efforts and less over who can buy them at the store.

Maybe these laws are a first step, maybe they aren't - I really don't know because that is an extremely hard call to make. If Cookie Monstor had to change his image (cookies are for sometimes) maybe it's time for other changes as well. However, I am quiet sure when people started working with 2D graphics they never imaged them becoming as realistic or life-like as they are now. I am sure they never would have believed that we would be seeing complete movies on the topic either.

But video games aren't a health hazard. Regulating an piece of entertainment like that is ridiculous and if you're going to do it, make sure all forms are covered.

The parents should be the one explaining or discussing violence with their kids, not the TV. It's already used as a baby sitter.

The Cookie Monster didn't need to change either, but that's an entirely different debate.