Jack Thompson's bill approved

[Jodah]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

It's not up to me or the government to stop the immature from buying GTA, that's the parent's job.

True, but what if the parents don't care? If they are neglectful? It could be pretty bad to have a really immature child playing Manhunt or GTA.

Not my nor the government's problem nor fault. The government shouldn't be used for alternative parenting.

Don't give me this crap about blaming everything on parenting, once your over twelve, you aren't a kid anymore,(I certainly wasn't) 18 has no biological significance. Biologically, you're still a kid. What if you are influenced into shooting police or driving recklessly? (Someone your age) Mental strength does not come from parenting, it comes from oneself. Good lord, do you blame every persons stupidity on parenting? They are their own person, and they are idiots.

I fail to see what your argument is. You are saying that they are just as mature at 12 as 18. By that logic a 12 year old should be able to purchase an M rated game by themselves. In that case you are agreeing with the person you are arguing with you are just arguing semantics.

Either the kid is mature enough to handle those kinds of games/not buy them since they aren't mature enough (as you say) or the parents should be able to control their own children to prevent them from purchasing the game(as he says).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Easy loop hole, one that kids have been using since the ESRB was concepted, have their parents buy the game. Technically they're not selling it to a minor. However, maybe we should be taking some steps to crack down on M rated games being sold to minors. ESRB was put there for a reason, to keep people like Jack Thompson from going on their crusades.

Perhaps we should stop cracking down on the retailers (since a lot of stores in Canada actually follow the rules for that) and start cracking down on the PARENTS that ignore these warnings, and buy their damn 12 yr old the rated M (or even A-O) games!

Just a thought...

That violates certain inherent parental rights, unfortunately. As an example, while it is illegal for a minor to purchase alcohol or even consume alcohol under most circumstances, it is completely okay for the guardian of said child to give the child booze so long as they are present for the consumption. The most common case where this comes up of course in in churches that still hand out booze as part of the sacriment rather than grape juice (I guess that's just the plasma of christ. . . )

 

[Joeshie]

HAY GUYS, GREAT IDEA. LETS FINE COMPANIES THAT SELL CANDY TO ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 17. AFTER ALL, CANDY IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH AND WE WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PARENTS TO POLICE THEIR KIDS.

ACTUALLY, LETS JUST FINE ANYONE WHO SELLS ANYTHING TO ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 17. EASY MODE FOR PARENTS.

I think you people tend to forget that there is absolutely zero conclusive evidence that violent video games are bad for a child's mental health. Why the hell should we restrict the sale of media that has no conclusive evidence to be harmful? It's just about as stupid as the porn ban for anyone under the age of 18.

If you don't want your children to see violence, fine, it's up to you. But banning children form otherwise harmless media is a violation of children's rights, in my opinion.

ALSO, PROTIP: There are no laws banning or prohibiting the showing of R-rated material to minors. These guidelines are strictly enforced by the film companies and the movie theaters. If they can police themselves just fine, why can't retailers for video games?

 

[101194]

Why does it matter? When I was a kid and if I wanted to play M+ Rated games I'd talk to my dad and show him my point of view and showed him the Statsistics of the people who play the game and made him understand that Violent videogames don't make Violent people. Violent people are Attracted to Violent Videogames. I wasn't able to complete GTA4 A series that was very friendly to me as a child (lol). Because it didn't have the Depth and the emotional attactment that Rpgs And other story telling games have.

 

[SteveDave]

I doubt that it will stand the test of time (supreme court).

 

[Cliff_m85]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

It's not up to me or the government to stop the immature from buying GTA, that's the parent's job.

True, but what if the parents don't care? If they are neglectful? It could be pretty bad to have a really immature child playing Manhunt or GTA.

Not my nor the government's problem nor fault. The government shouldn't be used for alternative parenting.

Don't give me this crap about blaming everything on parenting, once your over twelve, you aren't a kid anymore,(I certainly wasn't) 18 has no biological significance. Biologically, you're still a kid. What if you are influenced into shooting police or driving recklessly? (Someone your age) Mental strength does not come from parenting, it comes from oneself. Good lord, do you blame every persons stupidity on parenting? They are their own person, and they are idiots.

Until the person is 18, the parent's still have power over the child. Simple as that. If a parent thinks their kid isn't ready for GTA, then the parent should put their foot down and not allow it. The government isn't our mommy or daddy. I don't see how you could possibly use an example of "What if someone my age...." because I'm 23, not a child, and can legally buy the games for myself and have to be responsible for my own actions.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

thanks alot Max, you just screwed over my state of Wyoming.

 

[Adfest]

*facepalm*

Goddamnit, Utah. Why? As if all the stupid shit we do isn't bad enough, we have to start taking Jack Thompson seriously while everyone else shuns him for the idiot that he is.

 

[codac42]

This seems completely reasonable. I mean this should be everywere and this is coming from a minor. doesnt it make sense that if a game has the M rating the parent should have to buy the game even if its the kids money. The only thing that bothers me is people grouping all minors as the same maturity most of the people that act like idiots on X-Box live tend to sound older.

 

[Jenkins]

I know how we can lighten the load of the U.S's economic crisis.

Sell off Utah to the highest bidder. do this and Ill laugh when Utah becomes part of the Peoples Republic of China.



but in all seriousness. this bill is kinda worthless. "oh man, guess I need to take mommy to the store to buy GTA now, aww man"

 

[Lonan]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

It's not up to me or the government to stop the immature from buying GTA, that's the parent's job.

True, but what if the parents don't care? If they are neglectful? It could be pretty bad to have a really immature child playing Manhunt or GTA.

Not my nor the government's problem nor fault. The government shouldn't be used for alternative parenting.

Don't give me this crap about blaming everything on parenting, once your over twelve, you aren't a kid anymore,(I certainly wasn't) 18 has no biological significance. Biologically, you're still a kid. What if you are influenced into shooting police or driving recklessly? (Someone your age) Mental strength does not come from parenting, it comes from oneself. Good lord, do you blame every persons stupidity on parenting? They are their own person, and they are idiots.

Until the person is 18, the parent's still have power over the child. Simple as that. If a parent thinks their kid isn't ready for GTA, then the parent should put their foot down and not allow it. The government isn't our mommy or daddy. I don't see how you could possibly use an example of "What if someone my age...." because I'm 23, not a child, and can legally buy the games for myself and have to be responsible for my own actions.

I apologise for not mentioning that one stops developing at the age of 25, and that puberty begins at 12. Therefore, the maturity of the individuals within that age range, or any age range, is a result of their personal decision. Twenty five is probably more physical anyway, and so really someone who's 50 could be very immature and commit a crime, which happens a lot. I did not consider myself a child at the age of 12(grade 7), but the kids around me were idiots. I had decided to become more mature, mostly because of the kids I was with before junior high school. I have now graduated from high school, and I can say without a doubt that the kids I graduated with in Grade 6 were more mature then those I graduated with in Grade 12. That is why I think the government should interfere. My fellow classmates may not be ones to murder police, but the point is they are all adults, and are less mature then 10/11/12 year old "kids". Therefore, where parenting has ended, who is to stop criminals before they commit crimes? From the strong arguments you have made, I really do not think you are a criminal at all, but can you blame me for my concern when there are adults who do not feel that they have the slightest responsibility to be a mature citizens running around held in only by the police? And my high school was considered structured and disciplined, as it was a boarding school. I shudder to think about how they would turn out from the anarchy of public school. They are mindless creatures with no principles, existing only to be shaped by their surroundings. They are potentially dangerous, and after a crime has been committed, the police can only investigate, someone has still been harmed, or even killed. However, I guess the point of all this is that I got offended at the idea that if I did something silly when I was under 18, it would be the fault of my parents. It suggests that I am just a piece of clay that needs moulding, and if I did something wrong, I should have been moulded better. I was under 18 so it wasn't my fault, it was the moulders fault.

Having said all that, I am starting to think that regulating a few games is probably not the most effective way to prevent crime. The best thing is discipline in schools. So if you could pretend for a moment that my previous paragraph is completely separate (because I still want it posted in this context) I agree that the government should not ban GTA, as the root of crime must be attacked in schools, and has nothing to do with video games. However, I think that most teenagers view their parents solely as a source of shelter and sustenance, and have little to do with them. Therefore the majority of the responsibility lies with schools and teachers, and perhaps most importantly the decisions of peers.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Setting an age range is ridiculous because some children are more mature than others. I also think that most kids understand the difference between video games and real life.

It is true of course that the maturity of children is not the same, and so setting an age range is ridiculous. However, if you are anti-government, how do you plan on stopping the immature from buying GTA?
The government would have to keep records of students maturity and maybe issue them cards to show to retailers in order to buy games. It makes sense to me, but if you are anti-government, how do you propose that games like Manhunt and GTA be kept away from the easily influenced? Or do you simply think that any child should be allowed to have a game which involves very personal ways of killing people?

It's not up to me or the government to stop the immature from buying GTA, that's the parent's job.

True, but what if the parents don't care? If they are neglectful? It could be pretty bad to have a really immature child playing Manhunt or GTA.

Not my nor the government's problem nor fault. The government shouldn't be used for alternative parenting.

Don't give me this crap about blaming everything on parenting, once your over twelve, you aren't a kid anymore,(I certainly wasn't) 18 has no biological significance. Biologically, you're still a kid. What if you are influenced into shooting police or driving recklessly? (Someone your age) Mental strength does not come from parenting, it comes from oneself. Good lord, do you blame every persons stupidity on parenting? They are their own person, and they are idiots.

Until the person is 18, the parent's still have power over the child. Simple as that. If a parent thinks their kid isn't ready for GTA, then the parent should put their foot down and not allow it. The government isn't our mommy or daddy. I don't see how you could possibly use an example of "What if someone my age...." because I'm 23, not a child, and can legally buy the games for myself and have to be responsible for my own actions.

I apologise for not mentioning that one stops developing at the age of 25, and that puberty begins at 12. Therefore, the maturity of the individuals within that age range, or any age range, is a result of their personal decision. Twenty five is probably more physical anyway, and so really someone who's 50 could be very immature and commit a crime, which happens a lot. I did not consider myself a child at the age of 12(grade 7), but the kids around me were idiots. I had decided to become more mature, mostly because of the kids I was with before junior high school. I have now graduated from high school, and I can say without a doubt that the kids I graduated with in Grade 6 were more mature then those I graduated with in Grade 12. That is why I think the government should interfere. My fellow classmates may not be ones to murder police, but the point is they are all adults, and are less mature then 10/11/12 year old "kids". Therefore, where parenting has ended, who is to stop criminals before they commit crimes? From the strong arguments you have made, I really do not think you are a criminal at all, but can you blame me for my concern when there are adults who do not feel that they have the slightest responsibility to be a mature citizens running around held in only by the police? And my high school was considered structured and disciplined, as it was a boarding school. I shudder to think about how they would turn out from the anarchy of public school. They are mindless creatures with no principles, existing only to be shaped by their surroundings. They are potentially dangerous, and after a crime has been committed, the police can only investigate, someone has still been harmed, or even killed. However, I guess the point of all this is that I got offended at the idea that if I did something silly when I was under 18, it would be the fault of my parents. It suggests that I am just a piece of clay that needs moulding, and if I did something wrong, I should have been moulded better. I was under 18 so it wasn't my fault, it was the moulders fault.

Having said all that, I am starting to think that regulating a few games is probably not the most effective way to prevent crime. The best thing is discipline in schools. So if you could pretend for a moment that my previous paragraph is completely separate (because I still want it posted in this context) I agree that the government should not ban GTA, as the root of crime must be attacked in schools, and has nothing to do with video games. However, I think that most teenagers view their parents solely as a source of shelter and sustenance, and have little to do with them. Therefore the majority of the responsibility lies with schools and teachers, and perhaps most importantly the decisions of peers.

School's job isn't for discipline, it's job is basically to teach kids how to learn. I'm not a fan of public schools though. I remember my time in it and remember how I learned much more autodidactically. The school teaches you how to learn, your parents raise you. When it comes down to it, the parents are at fault for not disciplining children accordingly.