Monday, November 1, 2010

Should Teens Be Able To Buy Violent Games

A California law that restricts the sale of violent video games to those under 18 will be challenged in the Supreme Court soon. Read This Article.

What's your opinion. Do you believe in this ban or do you side with those who say this law violates people's rights. Should a 17-year old be banned from buying a violent game? What if the 17-year old bought the game with money he earned himself? Should these games be treated the same as movies or more like pornography?


Megan said...

I do not believe that it is violating a child's constitutional rights to not allow him or her to buy violet and explicit video games. The movie industry has banned children from seeing R-rated movies. Children have parents for a reason. To protect them. But parents can not be around 24/7 so placing restrictions on movies, video games, magazines, etc is necessary. It doesn't matter how the child got the money to buy the game or if they're 17 or 12. They should not be allowed to buy these types of video games.

Melissa Laster said...

I agree with this ban. I don't play video games but my finance does. When I have children I would not want them playing some of the games that he plays or even able to go out and buy games themselves. It will be ultimately up to me or my finance, if we want to buy these games for our children but I do think that the law would help. I think that any children should be banned from buying a violent video game. If the child wants the game then they can talk to their parents. It will then be left up to the parents to make the decision. I don't think it matters whether the 17-year-old earned the money themselves. If they are living in their parents house it is up to the parents. Yes, I do think these games should be treated the same as movies and pornography because these games can effect children and cause them to be violent by just playing them. So I do agree with this ban.

Taylor Lang said...

Video games have gotten so lifelike nowadays that it is similar to watching an R rated movie, which are also still restricted by age. Video game graphics and programming is nothing like it was in the past, which leads me to believe that this age restriction is necessary.

This law should be upheld much like that of age restrictions on pornography and rated R movies. With any of these items, if a kid wants the item bad enough, they will find a way to get that violent video game or rated R movie. The age restriction just makes it a little harder for these kids to obtain the violent video games.

bkp36 said...

First, it should make no difference if the child earned the money used to purchase the game. I support the law. Yes, it would be my preferred choice if parents took the role to avoid children being exposed to violence on television and video games. Unfortunately, parents are busy and often the child is playing in their on room without the parent's knowledge of how terrible some of these games can be.

The law should be upheld. It's just like tobacco, spray paint,alcohol, and the many other items that cannot be purchased by minors. The safest prevention for teenagers is to keep them from legally purchasing items that may cause harm to them or even worse others. I believe some games I've seen are worse than most movies because the weapon is placed in the hand of the teenager. The products should be governed by strong regulations.


Rebecca G. said...

I agree with this ban on kids buying violent games. I don't see why it is any different than requiring proof of age for alcohol, cigarettes, movies, etc. Who cares where the kids got the money from...the movies and liquor stores don't ask before a purchase is made, they only want to know that you are of age to buy it. I'm sure, just like with movies and alcohol, there will be those that find their way around such age restrictions.

Rebecca Grimes

Anonymous said...

Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to buy or rent video games with such violence. Like Quintero stated, parents are not around at all times to monitor their child's every move. It is important to be a good parent by communicate with your children to make them understand what is right and wrong.

I believe teens should be carded when they buy video games. Video games these days are so realistic and show blood, assault, nudity etc...teens should not be allowed to view this. Personally, I don't care how the child gets money, whether it's their own money, or their parents gave it to them, they should not be allowed to purchase violent video games. In conclusion, I totally agree with the ban of video games. It should be banned everywhere!


Rob said...

It is odd to me that a California (of all states) would ban anything. This is the same state is very close to legalizing marijuana (watch tomorrow's results). I am sure that most companies - just as the one I work for - have to manipulate their policies solely to accommodate for California's outlier laws.

This decision should e left to the parents. Yes, these games are very realistic, but the proper education, these games can be both entertaining and educational. Who earned the money does not impact my reasoning in either direction.

When I look at the government of California - it is everything that a state government should not be. For a state that is essentially bankrupt, I would think that the elected officials would have more important things to discuss than video games.

Paula said...

I agree with the ban as well because young people are already violent enough without having access to violent video games. These games only serve to enhance the behavior of violence on the youth. There's just too much violence anyway. Although, there are restrictions on these games, if kids want them bad enough then they'll find away to purchase them or have someone of age to purchase it for them. I applaud the parents who do take the time to screen the movies, music, video games,etc.,that their child/ren take part in.
No, teens should definitely not be able to buy violent games because it's just not healthy folr them. There's lots of crime in the world today and a lot of the young people commit these crimes, where are they getting these thoughts from? Probably from violent games.

Paula G.

jessimpson said...

My husband is a gamer. He plays Call of Duty, and in the past, has played Grand Theft Auto. He was 20 years old when I met him, which is different than being 17 or younger. As the wife of a gamer, I am completely opposed to these games. I have witnessed firsthand the violence on these games and the effect they have on an individual.

As biased as I am, my children will never play them, and I am all for the ban of them for anyone underage. I actually wish they would up the age to 21. Children should not be exposed to this kind of violence. They become desensitized to it and may respond differently in real life then they would have if they had never been exposed to them. I agree with the mother who says that you can only protect your children to a certain extent. Then, it is up to the kids to make the right decision.
Jessica Simpson

Daniel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel said...

There is no violation of kids rights involved in this issue. Parents more and more are not providing the proper guidance for their children, so laws like this are very important. Movies, music, and video games should all fall under the same categorie, and all violent and sexually explicit material should be kept away from those below the age of majority. It does not matter who buys the game, it should not be played by impressionable kids.

Daniel Ray

Yureka Lawrence said...

I strongly believe that the law should stand. Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to purchase these violent video games. Our culture is getting harder to understand. Half of the public believes that violent games produce violent behavior and want to blame the gaming company for producing these items. The other half wants them to allow 10 year olds to have access to games where they are killing, robbing, having sex or carjacking people. They cant have it both ways.

Where exactly will our morals and values be in the next ten years? It is pretty scary to me that anyone would enjoy playing some of those video games, maybe because Im a super mario type of girl. It really doesnt matter of people disagree but someone needs to stand up because I do not want to be the one who is robbed or beaten because this child thinks its so interesting and fun!!

scacapit said...

Video games are a form of media just like movies,music,and porn. If a child is unable to watch an r rated movie what is the difference with a video game. The ability to buy should be based on what the games are rated just like everything else.
It's a complicated situation because some kids pay for the games themselves and some parents don't care what their children do. This is a capitalist country and if someone works for something they should be able to get right. . . maybe not always but like I said it's complicated.

emdaco said...

I do agree with this ban, the same reason why some movies require a person to be 18 to buy tickets for. This ban helps parents to select what games are in their home, a parent can not be home all the time or "babysit" a near adult. This law allows them to somewhat limit what their child can buy without their consent. Of course they can have a friend buy it or play it somewhere else, but that goes for the majority of laws. Simply because there is ways to go around the law does not mean we should do without all together. These games really do enforce violence and really I feel are not good for kids, go out and play outside interact in person. So although I must admitt I am basis in being against video games pretty much all together, I do feel this ban should remain.

Emily Conroy

Jeremy D. said...

As a gamer, I have been playing video games since I was a little boy all the way up until now. I have played old games such as the Atari and Super Mario Brothers on Nintendo, as well as new video games such as NBA 2K11 on Playstation3. Because I did not have my own money as a child, not very much anyway, these games were purchased either by my parents or a close relative. So the fate of me receiving the game I actually wanted was inevitably in their hands. However, my parents never disappointed me and I always got the game I wanted.

I feel as though a 17-year old should not be banned from buying a violent game. These games should be treated somewhat the same as movies or more like pornography, but not as restricted. If they are going to make a move like this, the age limit should be reduced down to 16 years of age. I feel as though a 17-year old is mature enough to handle a game of such nature. Parents should just monitor their children, and if they feel as though the game is too violent or too mature, then they should take the appropriate preventative steps.

LHipp said...

I don't see a problem with this law. If a parent believes these games do not harm children, they can buy the games for them. At least then, they would know what their kids are doing.

I don't really see how this law is different from stopping kids from seeing R-rated movies, buying alcohol or buying porn.

lhw55 said...

I agree with most of my classmates on this issue. i do not believe that anyone over the age of 18 should be able to purchase violent video games. Just like the movie industry, the game industry has a rating on each of the games it produces. And just as the movie industry enforces the rule of no child under 18 purchasing a rated R movie the law should be the same for video game use.
Although I make plenty of money to afford alcohol, i am not 21 so therefore i can not make that purchase. So the same ideology should stand for the video games.
These children are still developing in the way they will live their lives and these voilent images could affect them in ways that are too much of a risk for us to make available to them

luke west lhw55

jerodine said...

I don't see a problem with the law. Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to purchase these violent video games. Most of the peoples believe that violent games are produce from violent behavior in our society today.

Believe it are not there's are a lots of crime in our society today and most of them by young children and you wonder where they get it from sometime watching tv, video games and peoples around them.

john ray said...

I have mixed emotions about this one. A kid under 18 can't buy a graphic video game but in 6 months or so can go fight in a war. I have a hard time with that. However some of these games are ridiculously violent and life like. I think they should have an age requirement but maybe more like 15. I also think we should have better parenting across the country. that is the real issue, not the video games!

Nick said...

Yes I support the fact that violent video games should have age restrictions in order to purchase them. Studies have proven that children who view violent movies or play violent video games has some effect, the magnitude is debatable, on the child’s thoughts. Children are young and influential. And many times their sense of reasoning and judgement making skills are not developed yet.

I play many video games that I do not allow my young nephews to play. I have the cognitive ability to recognize fact from fiction, good from bad, acceptable from unacceptable behavior - although my wife might say otherwise sometimes! But joking aside, children don’t always have this ability to make sound judgements. Due to this, society has a right to itself to protect children from themselves – regardless of how the many was earned.

Nick Abernathy

Anonymous said...

I don't believe a ban on video games with explicit content for children is violating a child's First Amendment right. The state also reserves the right to protect children when there is a legitimate state interest.
I think parenting really plays a big role in this however. It's up to the parent to instill morals in there children, and to protect them while they are little from violent content. I understand that parents aren't always there, but instilling good values in there children can help.
The ban is not stopping the explicit content from being produced. It is just stopping children from being able to purchase the games. So I really do not understand why this would offend anyone. Some people hate when the government get too involved with anything. But when it comes to a child's protection or potential delinquency, I think there should be boundaries.

Hunter Boerner said...

This is a hard question. I think overall media does shape and mold a child's beliefs and morals. I have heard numerous times that high school shooters and other violent instances have occurred because of the media our children are exposed to. I can honestly say that when I was 16 though I thought I was old enough to watch rated R movies etc, but this was probably not the smartest thing for me to be doing.

I honestly think this issue depends on the child in particular. Children and teens age at all different rates. Some teens deal with situations that adults in their 20's haven't even dealt with. If that is the case, I think they are mature enough to play a violent video game and distinguish between fantasy and reality. If I had to pick one side or the other, I would set the restriction of violent video games for children under 18 to be prohibited.

David said...

First of all, if you are under 18, you are a minor. You have no contractual authority, you have no right to vote, you cannot purchase or consume alcohol, you cannot purchase a firearm; however you do have a right to stay up all night playing football, you have the right to keep your innocence as long as society will allow, and you have the right to dream about your potential. Why do we as a society want to rush the process of adulthood? Isn't that the reason for gaming? An escape from reality. I don't understand why people enjoy violent games, I do understand gaming but not so much with violence, murder, blood and gore.

I support the parent groups on this and believe it is ridiculous that someone quotes the first amendment when it comes to minors. Lets start changing the focus of our society from the bad and turn to the good. I hope everyone reads my final thought on this:

When you are trying to kill weeds in your yard and spray Round Up on the weed, what is left? Nothing but a patch of dirt and brown weeds. The secret to a beautiful yard is to focus on growing strong grass. The grass will choke out the weeds and prevent any others from growing.

Hoping for greener societal yards,
David dlt174

Brandon said...

I side fully with the side of allowing the 17 year old to be able to purchase the games, but I am alos on the side allowing kids under 18 to purchase tickets to an R-Rated movie. I think the responsibility lies more with the parents than ambiguous and arbitrary laws deciding.

I think that there are so many other things that need to be regulated that violent video games seems, in my opinion, to be a little bit of overkill. I think the emphasis should be more on the parenting and maybe the efforts spent encouraging active parenting.

JOHN B said...

I am not surprised that this ban is originating in California. After all, California is also trying to put restrictions on McDonald’s Kids’ Meal. I see this as yet another governmental intrusion into the private lives of American citizens. It seems to me that California has enough problems from a governmental standpoint without attempting to usurp the authority and responsibility of parents. In my opinion, California should be working on resolving its budgetary problems rather than legislating the personal activities of its seventeen year old citizens.

It is true that movies are rated. However, a parent can still take his/her child to an R rated movie if he/she so desires. Video games are a form of entertainment. It should be the parents’ responsibility to determine whether or not a child plays these games. The parent is in a better position to determine what significance the child will attach to a particular video game and whether or not the child is mature enough to understand the difference between entertainment and actual violence.

clp said...

Children should be shielded from violence in the media. Video games are just one sector of the media that provides violent and inappropriate entertainment for children. Cable TV, provocative radio and movies are other media outlets that inundate society with violence. These medium have ratings systems and regulatory agencies that control the level of access to children. It is only natural that other newer forms of technology such as video games follow the same regulations. It is not an invasion of child’s rights to prevent them from buying violent video games. The movie industry has restrictive access for children into rated R movies. I once worked for a movie theater and the only way a child under 17 could see a rated R movie was if his or her parent watched it with them. The parents could not merely buy the ticket and say it was ok for their child to watch the movie. The parent had to watch the movie with them. This angered some parents, but the logic was that parents should have to know the content their child was exposed to before blindly approving of it. Children from age 8 to 16 tried to buy rated R movie tickets, but the rule was strictly enforced. I feel this is a reasonable solution.

If a child wants violent video games they should ask his or her parent to purchase it for them. This at least forces parents to have some idea about what their child is into and what kind of media he or she is exposed to. Hopefully parents would investigate and approve of the video games they purpose their child. The idea that the child’s own money should allow him or her to purchase the game is illogical. Rules and laws exist that prevent children from purchasing a myriad of products such as: beer, cigarettes, rated R movies, Sudafed, guns, provocative music, pornography, tattoos and body piercings.

Codi Phillips

Beth ann said...

I support what California is trying to do, in controlling the availability of certain video games for children. If the parent would do their job, it would not be necessary for laws that regulate children’s behavior. Being the daughter of a public school superintendent, I hear my father talking about how schools and government are being forced to take over and make the decisions that parents should be making. If we lived in a perfect world this type of law would not be needed, but we don’t.
I have no children, but when I do, I will not need these laws to control what my children will purchase. Just because a child earns their own money, it does not give them the right to purchase anything they desire. The article is making a very weak argument on this point.
Another interesting point in this article was the fact the California is pushing for this legislation. California is the most liberal state in the United States. They just had defeated a vote to legalize marijuana. There still may be hope for them.

Elizabeth Ann Wade

Cperkins said...

I really think that children under 17 should be more monitored by there parents. That is what a parent is for.

I dont believe that having worked for their own money gives them the right to do what they want to do. For instance, should they be allowed to buy drugs with the money they earned on their own?

I think that the maturity of a child should be the driving factor in whom watches what. However, since the government cannot evaluate every child, that is left up to the parents! This should be treated like movies, since parents should also be monitoring that as well.

Ebb said...

I beleive that if the parents allows this to happen then, then should be able to buy the game at age17, they are a bit on the mature side and just about know what right from wrong. So I don't feel that a violent game could create deliquency in a child, I think it is depending on the child's environment. However I don't beleive a 12 year old should be allowed to buy such games.

Renita Moore said...

The California Law states that adolescents under 18 can not buy violent games so that settles it. There are a lot of rules in Mississippi that I would like to change but I do not have the authority to. We have to state our concerns to our congressional leaders,and pray that they are in agreement with us in order to see a change.

Renita Moore said...


Renita Moore said...

California law states that adolescents under 18 can not buy violent games, so that settles it. There are many statutes and laws that I would like to change but I am not authorized to. We have to allow those that are elected in Congress to speak on our behalf. If they do not feel the same, then we are still in the same limbo.

Renita Moore said...

California Law states that adolescents under the age of 18 can not purchase violent games so that settles it. There is no leverage, and the only thing that we can do is contact our elected congressional leaders.