quote:Shawn Womack authored a bill that would require shops that rent or sell M-rated games to display them at a height of at least five feet from the floor.
Five feet?!? I'm sorry but I was five feet tall in 6th grade, that's not gonna help any. If you are going to protect us from the 'dreadful' video game violence at least do it well.
He is 18 years old. He is old enought to buy pornography, don't you think he is old enough that the punishment should be on him and him alone. Instead the lawemakers decide to pass the blame onto some who may be younger, but may also be much more responsible. Oh, well.....that's the government for you.
I know this is just a rant, but it irratates me to no end. *end rant* (for now)
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm 18, and I was always a Mario fan (no GTA for me), and I don't really care what other people do. So... Peter How can you regulate the video game industry without interfering with the rights of mature people who know well enough that necks enable people to see things above heads?
Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
Saw this, wrote up a thread, deleted it because I couldn't keep my eyes from crossing.
I am just waiting for some bullied preteen to read Ender's Game and use Ender as a role model. I can see the victim's relatives attempting to ban it from school curricula nationwide. Is there any relevant difference between a book containing reality disguised as a video game and a fairly realistic video game being translated to reality? Well, I would wager far more youths have played GTA3 than read Ender's Game, so the chances of getting a crazy are higher for the first.
I have heard it claimed that at least San Andreas can be played without killing anyone. Confirmations?
A final thought: Adolescents may well be using controversial video games, celebrities, music, etc. as scapegoats rather than role models. A little bit after the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, reports of middle schoolers engaging in oral sex surfaced, with some kids saying, "Well the President did it," and similar things. Sorry, but I do not buy it. There are (and were) just not that many eighth graders idolizing politicians.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Yeah, test cases, by their nature, are almost always trumped-up, faked, or exaggerated. Though that doesn't mean that the causes they represent are necessarily faulty (see Rosa Parks), in this case, they're bordering on silly.
If a kid can even be encouraged to mention a video game during an interrogation, suddenly, it becomes the cause. For some kids, that's like getting a high school football star to mention football — it's their only hobby, and it occupies a huge section of the fantasy world. Of course they mention it. It's important to them.
Does that mean that every time a football star commits a violent crime, it was caused by football? Actually, I'd like to perform a test on these lawyers. Find a football-playing kid who also plays Madden on his XBox. Have him commit a violent felony. See which game the lawyer seizes on as the "cause" of his behavior. The completely fantasy video game in which he controls the strategy of a team with his thumbs, and sees violence depicted on a screen as a result? Or the actual real-life game in which he rams, tackles, and otherwise assaults real people in a muddy field?
I think we know the answer, and it's sad.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
The attack on Full Spectrum Warrior, in particular, is such a blatant twisting of the truth. If you've never played the game, you might find it compelling, but Full Spectrum Warrior is a game that pulls you back a few steps from the violence and forces you to make tactical decisions that save the lives of your men. It trains soldiers to be thoughtful, cautious, to keep their heads clear in battle, and to make tactically sound decisions. It does NOT train them to be killing machines. You never once personally fire a gun throughout the entire experience.
Thompson knows this. He can't not know it by now. Yet he still makes his accusations. Really, really obnoxious.