Eve Charm said:
Gun control is probably to broad of a term but ya you know what? It's a hassle for me to wear a seatbelt but hell I have to do it or risk a ticket. If I have to wear a seatbelt and still have my freedoms, you can keep your guns locked up and unloaded and still have your freedoms and not get anyone killed.
An excellent example. Seatbelts save lives, and securing weapons save lives. Though both are a hassle, both should be done.
Eve Charm said:
I like that you mention the word idiot, How about an IQ test before giving people things that can kill people or themselves. How about you don't have a place to store your gun or ammo, you don't get one. You don't have a lock box or a cabinet no gun for you till you get one.
Great ideas. I'm sure the NRA would agree with the cabinet/lock box idea.
Eve Charm said:
If you needed the gun fast it'd be a few extra seconds to unlock a box then take it out.
There is a problem with your solution here.
Little old ladies, like the one in the article, often have difficulty unlocking those boxes. It would take you, or a child, mere seconds to unlock the box. It could take the grandmother 15 minutes. Then there is the additional time of trying to figure out which way to turn the ammo casing, and how to insert it. Finally there is the near impossible task of cocking the weapon.
These little old ladies may be no taller than a 10 to 14 year old child. So in order to get the weapon out of reach, they have to put it out of their own reach.
These little old ladies want their guns because they are afraid of having thieves break into their homes, or worse. Thieves often target them, because they are easy targets.
The original problem is that the grandmother did not feel safe at home. Yet a gun made her feel safe. The second problem is that the grandmother felt safe allowing a child to run unsupervised in a home with a loaded weapon.
Psychobabble said:
2) Please explain to me why if these games cannot in any way provoke violent behavior in children, why a ratings system for these games is necessary at all. And before you say language and other adult themes, such as scenes of a sexual nature, why would they have any aberrant impact on child behavior if violence does not. It seems odd that one aspect can be totally harmless yet others dangerous.
Our ratings systems are designed to solve two problems.
One is that there is material which should not be introduced too early in a child's development. Two is that there are differing opinions on what, and when a child could be introduced to certain material, if at all.
"K-A", and "E" represent the least objectionable material.
"E10+" and "T" represent material that is generally fun, but not everybody agrees that it is appropriate, especially for smaller children who haven't learned self-control, etc.
"M" games are generally considered to have unpleasant material, or display actions parents want their children to avoid, sometimes until they are mature, sometimes avoid it entirely
It is known that children like to emulate others, including characters in games. Young children likely have not developed a strong center, a strong notion of what is right and what it wrong. So there is worry that actions in the game will lead to planting "seeds" of corruption, or would otherwise interfere with the ethics the parents are trying to instill in the child. These are impressionable children, who have not fully developed their own identity, and are therefore susceptible to any "teachings".
Sexual Content is not age appropriate because most young children consider "flirtatious" behavior unsettling. In the "T" category, Teenagers are usually not mentally mature enough, or financially secure enough to raise a baby to be a responsible adult.
When young children play violent games, they may see violence as fun, or as a valid solution. A concern is that they might be more quick to adopt violent solutions as an adult, such as pre-emptive strikes by the military.
Yes, individually, each item can be overcome with a proper upbringing. However if the child is overwhelmed with contrary information, then the child will have trouble even "hearing" his/her parent. So some kind of advisory to minimize objectionable content is necessary.
A parent can't teach a child everything within the first four years of life, even after that there are 16 years of education expected.
