New York bill could put violent games under lock and key

Just as the state has the power (and the responsibility) to act on behalf of its young citizens when they're parents are criminally deficient in their parenting (neglect, abuse), I think there is room for an argument that the state must act on behalf of children whose parents are so irresponsible as to buy young children especially violent or sexually explicit media - games, books, and movies alike.
Naturally parental discretion must be respected, and an ideal world with ideal legislation would accommodate parents who earnestly felt their 15 year old was mature enough to watch a grisly film - there's a spectrum of responsibility is all I'm saying, and I have trouble with the notion that buying GTA IV for a 9 year old is just good ol' Lady Liberty at work. What it is is social darwinism - letting idiots fail as parents on their own terms. Just remember the kids didn't ask to have irresponsible parents.

However, as noted by the article, retailers already do what the bill requires for *all games* for simple security reasons, and it would literally achieve nothing in terms of stopping dumb parents from buying the game for their dumb kids.

argh, I fail at grammar on that first "their"

As I incorrectly quoted earlier, in the words of Franklin: He who sacrifices freedom for small security deserves neither.

By saying it's okay for other people to make your decisions for you, you might as well let them make all your decisions for you. At a time when it couldn't be easier to stop your kid from playing M-rated games at home with parental controls, the fact that this is still an issue only reinforces the notion that too many people do not want to do any thinking any more.

I would simply suggest you're quoting Franklin out of context.
You could use the same quote in a similarly bankrupt way to suggest that there shouldn't be police or courts or jails, because they provide security by regulating our freedom to commit crimes against one another. Should the government really have the power to decide for you what's right and wrong?
While we're at it lets get rid of child protection services, because they provide children with security by putting them under heavy surveillance, relocating them, making decisions for them, when their parents can't. Kids should be totally free, and if their own parents are deficient, and they'd prefer that the government protects them, they don't deserve freedom or safety.

Basically, I think you're misusing the concept of "security" as Benjamin Franklin used it. Comparing the restriction of access to video games for minors to British invasion seems a bit laughable.

Actually that would be idiots or lunatics with guns kill people. I enjoy being able to legally own a gun to protect myself in case some psycho or drug addict busts into the house. Besides criminals will always get their hands on weapons while the innocent are banned from them, lawl. Pretty Stupid. England has some of the highest knife killings in the world since they banned guns (and they still have gun killings).

Remember everyone... PEOPLE kill PEOPLE. Everything else (like video games) is an excuse.

Actually, the point of the second amendment is to protect all the other rights of American citizens. If only the government is allowed access to firearms, then the citizens have little recourse if there ever came time for another revolution. The freedom of speech does not protect itself; put two men in a room, and one can be smarter, more eloquent, and perfectly in the right to speak against the other, but if the other person has a gun and the first one does not, you can be guaranteed the first person won't be talking very long.

The likelihood of a "psycho or drug addict" busting into your home if you don't own a gun isn't very high. The likelihood of the government eventually stripping its citizens of every basic freedom if private citizens didn't own guns is much higher.

But hey, if you trust your politicians enough to respect your right to speak out against them even if they have all the guns and we, the private citizens, have none, then by all means vote for every gun control law up to and including the one that makes it illegal to privately own a firearm.

I kinda disagree there. They should ban automatic weapons, not semi-automatic(one-handed pistols only) weapons.

If someone were to break into my house, and I decide to spray my wall with an AK-47, I'd probably someone else in my building, because of these paper-thin walls, probably my neighbor that threatens to call the cops and leaves nasty notes on my door when I play Rock Band.

You saying guns kill people is really no different than saying video games kill people dude.

Here's a story for you:

"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia - responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. - unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available - for the year 2005 - show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted."

In other words, illegal guns will still be present, but if the bad guys know that none of the good guys can defend themselves, then there's no risk. Whereas when everyone has a gun, even if most of them won't use it, the risk is much higher and criminals head elsewhere.

Only consensual sex in the missionary position, is fine.

I'm surprised the law lets me work from behind. I remember the Bible saying that sex has to be face-to-face somewhere. Come on Congressmen, whip me with your rod of moral justice, just try not to get too kinky (they may think you're into S&M)...

The only games I've ever heard of involving rape only mention it briefly, I've never found bestiality, and unless you're into Japanese hentai, incest almost never comes up...

Guess you didn't hear of the new Wii game coming?


"MARIO BESTIAL FORCED SEX PARTY!!"