Violent Video Games: Should Kids Be Able to Buy Them?

Reader Comments
Back to article

This surely violates the First amendment. But I believe this to be a push by parents that complain about their "uncontrolable" children, but don't want to accept any blame for lack of discipline of the child. So they have to find a blame on something of their child's entertainment. Parents that share discipline with respect for their child's choice of entertainment would have a problem with this ban, because it takes their role out of their hands where it should be. The state government of California, needs to revamp where they stand on issues. Afterall, don't they still have Charlie Mason still alive and ranting?

Larry of FL 2:37AM May 15, 2010

Look, I am a lawyer, father, and a gamer and I live in California. This is not a good law. It is riddled with problems and incomplete analysis. As a parent, no, I don't want my kids exposed to anymore violence than is necessary. But, if you are going to restrict the sale of games to kids under 18, then you are saying games are as bad as alcohol or cigarettes or even porn. Its not even comparable. How exactly are games worse than "Parental Advisory" CDs, or books or certain movies? They are not. The other problem I have is what exactly constitutes "ultra violent"? How do we even go about defining that. The ESRB has an excellent rating system; why muck that up with terms that mean something only to the people who have written this law. This is a question of responsibility for parents and trust in your kids. Certainly, parents need to be concerned about any game with a M rating. But outright banning of sales of these games to kids under 18 will only spike the demand for these games and cause kids to take some real shortcuts to get these games.

Dave of CA 12:21AM May 15, 2010

(btw i'm over 17 and i can buy my own games)
No one has ever become a serial killer from playing a video game. Even if it did increase aggression, why would they waste time by going outside and trying the very same thing they just did?
Video games are no different than movies.
Video games that are extremely bad are banned from the stores.
In my experience, games are rated too harshly. Example: Halo is a game with very small, if any, blood and some very mild language. It seems a bit exessive to have to be at least 17 to buy it.
If i can join the army and vote at 18, i can handle a simple alien/robot/clone war in a video games that even 5 year olds play.
These laws are unconstitutional and need to be abolished.

Zach Stampe of IN 4:40PM May 14, 2010

Should a child under 17 be allowed to buy M thru M17+ rated games?i simple question with a parents answer: HELL NO!!!
if i deem the game too mature for my child;he/she is not getting it,but that's MY CHOICE.
BUT to allow my child to buy a game that i said NO to is taken away MY PARENTAL RIGHTS,THE SYSTEM THAT IS IN PLACE IS FINE.
Without me there to buy said game my child won't get it.
the moron that wrote this poll needs a new job.
double negative equals a positive.
Afew games have been ruined due to lawyers using the game a child played and then went out and did it for real,saying the game made him/her do it.BULL$#!T?
the TOTAL LACK OF PARENTING CAUSED IT,AND OF COURSE THE GOVT. STICKING THEIR TWO CENTS IN, ON HOW TO RAISE YOUR CHILD(NOT ALLOWED TO SMACK THEIR ASS OR YELL AT THEM ECT. AND IF YOU DO
YOUR CHILD CAN HAVE YOU ARRESTED FOR ABUSE.
All this whinning about video game issues but where were the whinners when the courts ruled on what you can and can't do with your child????

sarge of PA 8:11AM May 14, 2010

This proposed law only serves to show how out-of-touch California's lawmakers are with reality. Throwing up a ban like this won't "protect children," it will hurt retailers and the games industry. Furthermore, the poll is idiotic; children shouldn't be playing overtly violent video games period, but the poll asks if they should have a guardian present for the purchase. Why? If a child's guardian/parent actually buys 17+ games for them, they shouldn't be raising a child in the first place.
Supposing this law gets passed, what good would it actually do? There is already a rating system in place that honestly goes into more detail than it should. Retail stores do their best to follow existing policy (carding young customers for 17+ games, not selling to the very young), but ultimately parents will oftentimes overrule policy and look the other way to please their demanding children. Laws like this one seem to be born out of the misconception many people have that either there isn't a ratings system in place or that retailers flagrantly look the other way in regard to minors buying these games because the next BIG SALE is just that important to them.

Jarrid Martinson of FL 4:32AM May 14, 2010

No videogame has ever caused a kid to grow up to be a homicidal maniac.
Not if good parenting is happening.
A good parent, in this situation, either does not allow their children to play violent video games, or allows them to play the violent games with proper support structures in place - someone who can monitor them and make sure they know the difference between what's okay to do in the game vs. what's okay to do in real life.
Just like watching PG-13 or R-rated movies, the parents should make sure they know what's happening in their home as well as what the kids are doing when they're at friends' houses.
Whether kids should be allowed to buy T or M rated video games should be determined by the parents, or by the stores who set policies and abide by them. Just like any other decision affecting kids, the responsibility for making and enforcing the decision belongs with the parents. Playing violent video games (or sexy video games, or games that involve alcohol, or games involving profanity) is not abusive - the only situation in which the government should step in.

Kristin of TX 12:15AM May 14, 2010

This is a very misleading poll, and it is asking the wrong question. I think most adults would agree that violent video games should not be sold to children; the question at issue is not whether it should happen, but whether there needs to be legal safeguards preventing it, or whether the industry should be allowed to police itself, as it has been doing successfully for some time, as other similar industries do (such as the film industry). Another good poll question would be whether we think that the law in California, or any other such law, violates the First Amendment.
To answer both of those more relevant questions, I feel that laws regulating video games, especially as they have been structured in the past and present, DO violate the right to free speech and expression of the creators, sellers, and purchasers of these games. The industry does a good job of providing ratings to guide retailers and parents in making appropriate selling and buying choices. Most retailers abide by these ratings. The point of failure usually resides in parents who are not educated, who ignore the ratings, or who purchase the game for their children anyway and then look for a scapegoat when something goes wrong. Some parents may even buy the games for themselves and then neglect to control accessibility to them at home. As with most things involving children and their alleged "safety" against exposure to all things awful, it's time for lazy-ass parents to step up and actually be parents, rather than expecting the government to manage their children (and everyone else) for them.
It's called ersonal responsibility, people, something many are sorely lacking.

Umi of AZ 8:44PM May 13, 2010

Poll FAIL!!! Get an editor for your website!!!! FAIL!!!!!
@SuddleD

SD5150 of CA 7:27PM May 13, 2010

Poll FAIL!!! Get an editor for your website!!!! FAIL!!!!!

SD5150 of CA 7:27PM May 13, 2010

No, they shouldn't not not be sold to kids. Wait, what?
I agree that it's up to parents and the policies of some stores is already a nice gesture. No legislation required.
Or shouldn't I not say that there never shouldn't not be legislation? No way!

Dan of MD 4:19PM May 13, 2010