Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
Kids still do get in to the movies and they still do get around this so the law saying a movie threater gets fined doesn't stop the kid from getting it. It just makes the threater held accountable instead of the parent.
I'll quote what I said with my original post, "Of course kids can work around it if they're really dead set on getting what they want (like alcohol and ciggs), but it's a deterrent, not a infallible system of corporate parenting."
So if it doesn't stop em whats the point in it at all? why not leave it the way it is if changing it isn't going to stop em?
So in other words one should make sure to abolish also all laws that make it illegal to rob, beat up and kill people. Because it doesn't stop all there's no point, right?
There are already laws regarding underage kids buying "mature" video games. So adding more laws that do the exact same thing is going to suddenly help? And what the hell was the ESRB made for? To tell parents what the games contain and warn them against buying the games for their kids. The same damn thing this unnecessary law does.
But then again, every year some congressman or high profile DA looking to get re-elected suddenly has a "new" law aimed at "deterring" murders, rapes, etc., that are simply carbon copies of existing laws. And the murders, rapes, etc., keep on, just now there are redundant laws to not only slow down police officers, but also to help the criminals get off on technicalities.
Continuing to make redundant laws does nothing more than shouting "NO!" at a rebellious teenager and just contributed to the overstressed court system.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Richars's ooint that Arnie did't seem to have a problem mutilating humans when the Terminator was profitable.
That said, it is a fact that the armed services uses human targets for practice now. Why? Because abot 70% ( can't remember the exact number..sry) of soldiers killed in battle had never fired their weapon. The number halved when trained shooting human figures in practice. I'm sure this was in the pro-law group's petition.
A counterpoint..and a huge one is that the gaming industry is far better than the porn or movie industry in tagging content that should be a parents choice.
Gaming seems to be the target of the day.
I an NOT willing to support any law that intrudes on personal freedoms! Loose a little one and it always seems to get pushed to the next level. Freedom is precious and should never be given away, particularly to the government who, to often, know very little about the 'cause of the day, other than it is the cause du jour ( and a chance to get in front of a camera).
No one's saying that the content can't be in the game, they're saying that it's the vendor's responsibility to ensure it does not pass hands to kids under their watch.
You are correct.. Cept I didn't say the content can't be in the game either. Quite the contrary, I think the law should be defeated. Read the whole post!
If you had read or listened to the arguments you would know, as stated by the CA. attorney ' we have to start somewhere'. This is the problem with allowing 'little' freedoms slip away. They always seem to lead to more restrictions and laws. In the end an underage buyer will find a way as they ( and I in younger days) always have.
Nothing to do with little freedoms it is controlling what is available to minors. Minors lack the cognitive skills to determine right and wrong. Just attend some school classes, it is self evident.
Nothing to do with little freedoms it is controlling what is available to minors. Minors lack the cognitive skills to determine right and wrong. Just attend some school classes, it is self evident.
Ignorance is bliss its easy to glace at a picture without caring why its made.
Nothing to do with little freedoms it is controlling what is available to minors. Minors lack the cognitive skills to determine right and wrong. Just attend some school classes, it is self evident.
Ignorance is bliss its easy to glace at a picture without caring why its made.
I think maybe u underestimate children's inate sense of right and wrong. By the time they are old enough to create much mayhem you can see their guilty looks when caught in selfish or wrong behavior. the trick (imo) is to make them listen to those little conciouses (parents). Most kids who actuly murder other kids ane nuts (sociopaths) or pressured by older gang members. Or I guess a few just let their rage get out of control. I cannot see how killing a bunch of gnomes on a computer is gonna make a normal kid grab a hammer and go out and start pounding infant noggins.
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
California definitely has more pressing matters to address but I get where they are coming from. I don't agree with it, but I get it. The intent is good natured, but the application has slippery slope issues written all over it.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but the underlying issue is simply bad parenting and as far as I am aware, no matter how hard law makers have tried, they haven't been able to legislate people into becoming good parents.
*edit*
Kudos to you Richard.
This is one of the better pieces I've seen you write here. I'm usually pretty harsh with you about your articles, but this one was well done.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
This has NOTHING to do with parenting, it's about vendors being irresponsible in their sales.
Vendors will continue selling inappropriate games to minors without a thought towards the ethics of the situation as long as said minor can go to another store to purchase it.
A parent who lets their kid go to the mall is not a bad parent. A parent who is not there for every purchase their kid makes is not a bad parent. A kid who makes a poor decision doesn't make a bad parent.
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
This has NOTHING to do with parenting, it's about vendors being irresponsible in their sales.
Vendors will continue selling inappropriate games to minors without a thought towards the ethics of the situation as long as said minor can go to another store to purchase it.
And where will he play it .... on his computer in his apartment?
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
This has NOTHING to do with parenting, it's about vendors being irresponsible in their sales.
Vendors will continue selling inappropriate games to minors without a thought towards the ethics of the situation as long as said minor can go to another store to purchase it.
And where will he play it .... on his computer in his apartment?
Yes, once the game reaches the home, the concept of good and bad parenting comes into play. BUT, it's still the vendor that was being irresponsible to sell it in the first place. This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation.
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
This has NOTHING to do with parenting, it's about vendors being irresponsible in their sales.
Vendors will continue selling inappropriate games to minors without a thought towards the ethics of the situation as long as said minor can go to another store to purchase it.
And where will he play it .... on his computer in his apartment?
Yes, once the game reaches the home, the concept of good and bad parenting comes into play. BUT, it's still the vendor that was being irresponsible to sell it in the first place. This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation.
Ultimately the responsibility falls to the parents as to what their children are involved with, bad vendors or not.
You can legislate laws until you're blue in the face, the fact remains it's up to parents to decide and dictate to their children what's acceptable and what's not, what's right and what's wrong.
All these laws do is give lazy parents more reasons to be even more lazy.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
Yes, once the game reaches the home, the concept of good and bad parenting comes into play. BUT, it's still the vendor that was being irresponsible to sell it in the first place. This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation.
Ultimately the responsibility falls to the parents as to what their children are involved with, bad vendors or not.
You can legislate laws until you're blue in the face, the fact remains it's up to parents to decide and dictate to their children what's acceptable and what's not, what's right and what's wrong.
All these laws do is give lazy parents more reasons to be even more lazy.
No, it makes vendors be responsible in their sales.
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
This has NOTHING to do with parenting, it's about vendors being irresponsible in their sales.
Vendors will continue selling inappropriate games to minors without a thought towards the ethics of the situation as long as said minor can go to another store to purchase it.
And where will he play it .... on his computer in his apartment?
Yes, once the game reaches the home, the concept of good and bad parenting comes into play. BUT, it's still the vendor that was being irresponsible to sell it in the first place. This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation.
No you are wrong. You beat the kids a#$ and make him take it back to the store/ Or you don't give your irresponsible and or disobedient kid a credit card to show how much you love and trust him in the first place. If he (ok or she) was told they can't have liesure suit larry then they ought to get some consequences, if they get it somewhere. Of course all I just said is crap anyway as games do not bad people make. Bad people make other bad people. It is like a disease. I bet ol swhartzenator has some pretty bright and shiny skeletons in his closet as well. Does that make him bad???? After all he used to stand around in a thong flexing his muscles. I too have skeletons and was disobedient many times and looked at dirty magazines and read racy books when I was "too young". I also went to lots of war movies and gunfighter movies ... wow how did I ever make it this long without killing someone ... or bieng a drug dealer or a rapist. Guess most of us are just lucky. I know lets make it against the law to be unlucky ... afterall unlucky people cost society billions of dollars.
Sounds pretty silly doesn't it. Well, in my opinion it is pretty silly.
Oh Gosh I almost missed this one.
You said "This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation."
So I guess kids playing these games is no problem. So they just get someone else to buy it for em and the law is happy . Hoooo haaaawww
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
This has NOTHING to do with parenting, it's about vendors being irresponsible in their sales.
Vendors will continue selling inappropriate games to minors without a thought towards the ethics of the situation as long as said minor can go to another store to purchase it.
And where will he play it .... on his computer in his apartment?
Yes, once the game reaches the home, the concept of good and bad parenting comes into play. BUT, it's still the vendor that was being irresponsible to sell it in the first place. This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation.
No you are wrong. You beat the kids a#$ and make him take it back to the store/ Or you don't give your irresponsible and or disobedient kid a credit card to show how much you love and trust him in the first place. If he (ok or she) was told they can't have liesure suit larry then they ought to get some consequences, if they get it somewhere. Of course all I just said is crap anyway as games do not bad people make. Bad people make other bad people. It is like a disease. I bet ol swhartzenator has some pretty bright and shiny skeletons in his closet as well. Does that make him bad???? After all he used to stand around in a thong flexing his muscles. I too have skeletons and was disobedient many times and looked at dirty magazines and read racy books when I was "too young". I also went to lots of war movies and gunfighter movies ... wow how did I ever make it this long without killing someone ... or bieng a drug dealer or a rapist. Guess most of us are just lucky. I know lets make it against the law to be unlucky ... afterall unlucky people cost society billions of dollars.
Sounds pretty silly doesn't it. Well, in my opinion it is pretty silly.
People keep making this really complex and it's not. Can a store legally sell alcohol to a minor? How about cigarettes? Can a theater allow a minor to legally see a rated R movie on his own? There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE here than the way it has been for YEARS...
Stores NEED to be held responsible for their actions. This has NOTHING to do with parenting, the effects of violent or sexually explicit games, how the kid ended up at the store with money in the first place, or anything of the sort. It's about VENDOR RESPONSIBILITY.
Just like it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell alcohol to a minor, it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell games inappropriate for kids to minors.
Even though I think we both have sort of made our points I feel that I need to make just one more post on this subject. then I will shut up and leave the dead horse lie.
This thread is not at all about vendor responsibility. It is about making a law or laws to put the responsibility onto the vendors as to who can buy certain games in an attempt to pass the responsibility off those actually responsible for the minors. For some things ... like hand guns or rifles or even alcohol and cigarettes (although in Fl where I live there is no age restriction on posession or use of tobacco products), I am all for it (I used to get sent to the store to buy cigs for my parente all the time).
But for video games ???? You said "This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation."
Ok so what? Why do we want this to happen. Do we just want minors not to be able to buy bloody and gory video games(which they like lots more than adults do)? So they get someone else to buy them. There is no law against them playing them. The law is a waste of time and will have little or no effect on who plays what video game.
That is why I think it is silly. I dont think everyone else should think it's silly ... well maybe a little
You cannot successfully legislate morality. (Just as I cannot sucessfully spell successfully)
This thread is not at all about vendor responsibility. It is about making a law or laws to put the responsibility onto the vendors as to who can buy certain games in an attempt to pass the responsibility off those actually responsible for the minors.
This sums it up pretty well.
The parents are not doing a good enough job of keeping this stuff out of their childrens hands, so legislators attempt to put the burden else where other than where it should fall....with the parents.
As a parent myself, I don't expect legislators, or vendors, or anyone else for that matter to do my job for me. It's my responsibility to take care of my child, and that includes permitting them or forbidding them access to a video game if I do not think it's appropriate.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
This has NOTHING to do with parenting, it's about vendors being irresponsible in their sales.
Vendors will continue selling inappropriate games to minors without a thought towards the ethics of the situation as long as said minor can go to another store to purchase it.
And where will he play it .... on his computer in his apartment?
Yes, once the game reaches the home, the concept of good and bad parenting comes into play. BUT, it's still the vendor that was being irresponsible to sell it in the first place. This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation.
No you are wrong. You beat the kids a#$ and make him take it back to the store/ Or you don't give your irresponsible and or disobedient kid a credit card to show how much you love and trust him in the first place. If he (ok or she) was told they can't have liesure suit larry then they ought to get some consequences, if they get it somewhere. Of course all I just said is crap anyway as games do not bad people make. Bad people make other bad people. It is like a disease. I bet ol swhartzenator has some pretty bright and shiny skeletons in his closet as well. Does that make him bad???? After all he used to stand around in a thong flexing his muscles. I too have skeletons and was disobedient many times and looked at dirty magazines and read racy books when I was "too young". I also went to lots of war movies and gunfighter movies ... wow how did I ever make it this long without killing someone ... or bieng a drug dealer or a rapist. Guess most of us are just lucky. I know lets make it against the law to be unlucky ... afterall unlucky people cost society billions of dollars.
Sounds pretty silly doesn't it. Well, in my opinion it is pretty silly.
People keep making this really complex and it's not. Can a store legally sell alcohol to a minor? How about cigarettes? Can a theater allow a minor to legally see a rated R movie on his own? There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE here than the way it has been for YEARS...
Stores NEED to be held responsible for their actions. This has NOTHING to do with parenting, the effects of violent or sexually explicit games, how the kid ended up at the store with money in the first place, or anything of the sort. It's about VENDOR RESPONSIBILITY.
Just like it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell alcohol to a minor, it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell games inappropriate for kids to minors.
The effects of underage drinking is significantly different and the detrimental effects therein are well established.
Violent video games are no more detrimental to society than rock and roll music was back in the day when it was being blamed for bad behavior.
Apples and oranges.
Again, this is simply an attempt at passing the burden of parenting somewhere it does not belong.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
The effects of underage drinking is significantly different and the detrimental effects therein are well established.
Violent video games are no more detrimental to society than rock and roll music was back in the day when it was being blamed for bad behavior.
Apples and oranges.
Again, this is simply an attempt at passing the burden of parenting somewhere it does not belong.
I'm not sure if you don't understand or you refuse to understand, but you keep arguing topics that are moot and do not apply here. It is solely the vendor's responsibility for what it sells to whom. This is ONLY the vendor's responsibility, no one else's. Despite it being their responsibility, they are failing at it and thus require legal intervention to make more responsible choices in how they do their business.
have you guys noticed that when ever theres some type of problems, with kids and violence in america, the parents go on an all out war against tv, video games and what not ... but never blame them selfs for not beeing there when they shoudl have ... self tought children are just like self touhgt men they had ignorant fools for teachers ... when will ppl learn .
The effects of underage drinking is significantly different and the detrimental effects therein are well established.
Violent video games are no more detrimental to society than rock and roll music was back in the day when it was being blamed for bad behavior.
Apples and oranges.
Again, this is simply an attempt at passing the burden of parenting somewhere it does not belong.
I'm not sure if you don't understand or you refuse to understand, but you keep arguing topics that are moot and do not apply here. It is solely the vendor's responsibility for what it sells to whom. This is ONLY the vendor's responsibility, no one else's. Despite it being their responsibility, they are failing at it and thus require legal intervention to make more responsible choices in how they do their business.
It has nothing to do with my failure to understand.
I simply don't agree with your position.
I feel no matter what, it is ultimately the parents responsibility for what their kids do. If a vendor sells my child a game I do not want them exposed to, I'm not gonna call the police and cry to them to arrest or fine the vendor. To me that's assinine and asking the law to parent for me. What I'll do is take that game away from my child and if they already know they weren't supposed to purhase the game in the first place, punish them.
The critical point for you is the vendor and if this were alcohol, or firearms, or something equally dangerous to society/children I would agree with you, but for god's sake it's a video game. As I pointed out above, they're no more proven to be detrimental to society than rock and roll music was before there were video games. If a parent can't handle regulating what media their children choose to try and be exposed to, they're gonna have their hands full when it comes to real parenting.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
I really think that they ought to let video game companies fight fire with fire when it comes to defending themselves against these ridiculous watchdog groups. For every time a lawyer attempts to sue a game company on behalf of victims of crimes that are 'inspired' by movies, music, videogames, etc. The game companies should be able to produce sales sheets as proof to the contrary that not everyone who played their game decided to be mass murderer. End of story. Case thrown out. Pay the lawyer and court costs you lame-ass watchdog group. Start accepting the fact that a) YOU are responsible for your kids and their actions until they're 18, and b) just because one incident occurred doesn't make it a pandemic issue that needs sweeping, blanket legislation to eliminate the possibility of it every happening again.
Take responsibility for yourself, and how you've raised your kids. Stop expecting the government to do it for you just because you feel that you're entitled to be blameless cause your kid flipped out... /facepalm
heres another point for all to think about, when a person gets killed by a guy with a gun who do you blame, the gun ( videogame ), the company that made the gun ( the video game pub. ) or the guy that pulled the trigger ( the persone who bought the said item kid/adult ) ??? think about it ... pls coment on it
People keep making this really complex and it's not. Can a store legally sell alcohol to a minor? How about cigarettes? Can a theater allow a minor to legally see a rated R movie on his own? There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE here than the way it has been for YEARS...
Stores NEED to be held responsible for their actions. This has NOTHING to do with parenting, the effects of violent or sexually explicit games, how the kid ended up at the store with money in the first place, or anything of the sort. It's about VENDOR RESPONSIBILITY.
Just like it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell alcohol to a minor, it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell games inappropriate for kids to minors.
Yes, a theater can legally allow a minor to see a rated R movie in the United States. There is no legislation blocking it. The MPAA is a voluntary system put in place to assuage fears and stop laws from being introduced to limit movie sales.
The new CA law would call for legal enforcement against sales of certain media to minors.
People keep making this really complex and it's not. Can a store legally sell alcohol to a minor? How about cigarettes? Can a theater allow a minor to legally see a rated R movie on his own? There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE here than the way it has been for YEARS...
Stores NEED to be held responsible for their actions. This has NOTHING to do with parenting, the effects of violent or sexually explicit games, how the kid ended up at the store with money in the first place, or anything of the sort. It's about VENDOR RESPONSIBILITY.
Just like it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell alcohol to a minor, it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell games inappropriate for kids to minors.
Yes, a theater can legally allow a minor to see a rated R movie in the United States. There is no legislation blocking it. The MPAA is a voluntary system put in place to assuage fears and stop laws from being introduced to limit movie sales.
The new CA law would call for legal enforcement against sales of certain media to minors.
Sorry, but they can't. MPAA rating list shows, "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult 17 or older with photo ID." While the adult doesn't have to see the movie with the minor, purchase of the ticket and entrance to the theater requires that an adult be present. The lawful enforcement of this is only for rated R and NC-17 movies. (Minors cannot see NC-17 movies in a theater, no exceptions.)
People keep making this really complex and it's not. Can a store legally sell alcohol to a minor? How about cigarettes? Can a theater allow a minor to legally see a rated R movie on his own? There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE here than the way it has been for YEARS...
Stores NEED to be held responsible for their actions. This has NOTHING to do with parenting, the effects of violent or sexually explicit games, how the kid ended up at the store with money in the first place, or anything of the sort. It's about VENDOR RESPONSIBILITY.
Just like it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell alcohol to a minor, it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell games inappropriate for kids to minors.
Yes, a theater can legally allow a minor to see a rated R movie in the United States. There is no legislation blocking it. The MPAA is a voluntary system put in place to assuage fears and stop laws from being introduced to limit movie sales.
The new CA law would call for legal enforcement against sales of certain media to minors.
Sorry, but they can't. MPAA rating list shows, "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult 17 or older with photo ID." While the adult doesn't have to see the movie with the minor, purchase of the ticket and entrance to the theater requires that an adult be present. The lawful enforcement of this is only for rated R and NC-17 movies. (Minors cannot see NC-17 movies in a theater, no exceptions.)
Exactly. Where people get these ideas that it is not legally enforceable sometimes me wonder. I mean, you have the net at your finger tips, you can't look it up before rendering a wrong opinion?
Comments
There are already laws regarding underage kids buying "mature" video games. So adding more laws that do the exact same thing is going to suddenly help? And what the hell was the ESRB made for? To tell parents what the games contain and warn them against buying the games for their kids. The same damn thing this unnecessary law does.
But then again, every year some congressman or high profile DA looking to get re-elected suddenly has a "new" law aimed at "deterring" murders, rapes, etc., that are simply carbon copies of existing laws. And the murders, rapes, etc., keep on, just now there are redundant laws to not only slow down police officers, but also to help the criminals get off on technicalities.
Continuing to make redundant laws does nothing more than shouting "NO!" at a rebellious teenager and just contributed to the overstressed court system.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
So far they have not made any dumb mistakes that would cause major harm or done any reckless behaivor.
You are correct.. Cept I didn't say the content can't be in the game either. Quite the contrary, I think the law should be defeated. Read the whole post!
If you had read or listened to the arguments you would know, as stated by the CA. attorney ' we have to start somewhere'. This is the problem with allowing 'little' freedoms slip away. They always seem to lead to more restrictions and laws. In the end an underage buyer will find a way as they ( and I in younger days) always have.
Nothing to do with little freedoms it is controlling what is available to minors. Minors lack the cognitive skills to determine right and wrong. Just attend some school classes, it is self evident.
Ignorance is bliss its easy to glace at a picture without caring why its made.
I think maybe u underestimate children's inate sense of right and wrong. By the time they are old enough to create much mayhem you can see their guilty looks when caught in selfish or wrong behavior. the trick (imo) is to make them listen to those little conciouses (parents). Most kids who actuly murder other kids ane nuts (sociopaths) or pressured by older gang members. Or I guess a few just let their rage get out of control. I cannot see how killing a bunch of gnomes on a computer is gonna make a normal kid grab a hammer and go out and start pounding infant noggins.
People learn bad from other people.
just an opinion
If Ya Ain't Dyin, Ya Ain't Tryin
As much as I agree with what many here are saying as far as parents being responsible for wehat their children purchase, the sad fact is that many parents are not that responsible.
California definitely has more pressing matters to address but I get where they are coming from. I don't agree with it, but I get it. The intent is good natured, but the application has slippery slope issues written all over it.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but the underlying issue is simply bad parenting and as far as I am aware, no matter how hard law makers have tried, they haven't been able to legislate people into becoming good parents.
*edit*
Kudos to you Richard.
This is one of the better pieces I've seen you write here. I'm usually pretty harsh with you about your articles, but this one was well done.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
This has NOTHING to do with parenting, it's about vendors being irresponsible in their sales.
Vendors will continue selling inappropriate games to minors without a thought towards the ethics of the situation as long as said minor can go to another store to purchase it.
A parent who lets their kid go to the mall is not a bad parent. A parent who is not there for every purchase their kid makes is not a bad parent. A kid who makes a poor decision doesn't make a bad parent.
And where will he play it .... on his computer in his apartment?
If Ya Ain't Dyin, Ya Ain't Tryin
Yes, once the game reaches the home, the concept of good and bad parenting comes into play. BUT, it's still the vendor that was being irresponsible to sell it in the first place. This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation.
Ultimately the responsibility falls to the parents as to what their children are involved with, bad vendors or not.
You can legislate laws until you're blue in the face, the fact remains it's up to parents to decide and dictate to their children what's acceptable and what's not, what's right and what's wrong.
All these laws do is give lazy parents more reasons to be even more lazy.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
No, it makes vendors be responsible in their sales.
No you are wrong. You beat the kids a#$ and make him take it back to the store/ Or you don't give your irresponsible and or disobedient kid a credit card to show how much you love and trust him in the first place. If he (ok or she) was told they can't have liesure suit larry then they ought to get some consequences, if they get it somewhere. Of course all I just said is crap anyway as games do not bad people make. Bad people make other bad people. It is like a disease. I bet ol swhartzenator has some pretty bright and shiny skeletons in his closet as well. Does that make him bad???? After all he used to stand around in a thong flexing his muscles. I too have skeletons and was disobedient many times and looked at dirty magazines and read racy books when I was "too young". I also went to lots of war movies and gunfighter movies ... wow how did I ever make it this long without killing someone ... or bieng a drug dealer or a rapist. Guess most of us are just lucky. I know lets make it against the law to be unlucky ... afterall unlucky people cost society billions of dollars.
Sounds pretty silly doesn't it. Well, in my opinion it is pretty silly.
Oh Gosh I almost missed this one.
You said "This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation."
So I guess kids playing these games is no problem. So they just get someone else to buy it for em and the law is happy . Hoooo haaaawww
If Ya Ain't Dyin, Ya Ain't Tryin
People keep making this really complex and it's not. Can a store legally sell alcohol to a minor? How about cigarettes? Can a theater allow a minor to legally see a rated R movie on his own? There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE here than the way it has been for YEARS...
Stores NEED to be held responsible for their actions. This has NOTHING to do with parenting, the effects of violent or sexually explicit games, how the kid ended up at the store with money in the first place, or anything of the sort. It's about VENDOR RESPONSIBILITY.
Just like it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell alcohol to a minor, it's the VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to not sell games inappropriate for kids to minors.
Even though I think we both have sort of made our points I feel that I need to make just one more post on this subject. then I will shut up and leave the dead horse lie.
This thread is not at all about vendor responsibility. It is about making a law or laws to put the responsibility onto the vendors as to who can buy certain games in an attempt to pass the responsibility off those actually responsible for the minors. For some things ... like hand guns or rifles or even alcohol and cigarettes (although in Fl where I live there is no age restriction on posession or use of tobacco products), I am all for it (I used to get sent to the store to buy cigs for my parente all the time).
But for video games ???? You said "This bill is about the specific instance of cash and game trading hands between the vendor and the minor. That's it. All else is extraneous and does not apply to this specific situation."
Ok so what? Why do we want this to happen. Do we just want minors not to be able to buy bloody and gory video games(which they like lots more than adults do)? So they get someone else to buy them. There is no law against them playing them. The law is a waste of time and will have little or no effect on who plays what video game.
That is why I think it is silly. I dont think everyone else should think it's silly ... well maybe a little
You cannot successfully legislate morality. (Just as I cannot sucessfully spell successfully)
ZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP
If Ya Ain't Dyin, Ya Ain't Tryin
This sums it up pretty well.
The parents are not doing a good enough job of keeping this stuff out of their childrens hands, so legislators attempt to put the burden else where other than where it should fall....with the parents.
As a parent myself, I don't expect legislators, or vendors, or anyone else for that matter to do my job for me. It's my responsibility to take care of my child, and that includes permitting them or forbidding them access to a video game if I do not think it's appropriate.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
The effects of underage drinking is significantly different and the detrimental effects therein are well established.
Violent video games are no more detrimental to society than rock and roll music was back in the day when it was being blamed for bad behavior.
Apples and oranges.
Again, this is simply an attempt at passing the burden of parenting somewhere it does not belong.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
I'm not sure if you don't understand or you refuse to understand, but you keep arguing topics that are moot and do not apply here. It is solely the vendor's responsibility for what it sells to whom. This is ONLY the vendor's responsibility, no one else's. Despite it being their responsibility, they are failing at it and thus require legal intervention to make more responsible choices in how they do their business.
have you guys noticed that when ever theres some type of problems, with kids and violence in america, the parents go on an all out war against tv, video games and what not ... but never blame them selfs for not beeing there when they shoudl have ... self tought children are just like self touhgt men they had ignorant fools for teachers ... when will ppl learn .
It has nothing to do with my failure to understand.
I simply don't agree with your position.
I feel no matter what, it is ultimately the parents responsibility for what their kids do. If a vendor sells my child a game I do not want them exposed to, I'm not gonna call the police and cry to them to arrest or fine the vendor. To me that's assinine and asking the law to parent for me. What I'll do is take that game away from my child and if they already know they weren't supposed to purhase the game in the first place, punish them.
The critical point for you is the vendor and if this were alcohol, or firearms, or something equally dangerous to society/children I would agree with you, but for god's sake it's a video game. As I pointed out above, they're no more proven to be detrimental to society than rock and roll music was before there were video games. If a parent can't handle regulating what media their children choose to try and be exposed to, they're gonna have their hands full when it comes to real parenting.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
I really think that they ought to let video game companies fight fire with fire when it comes to defending themselves against these ridiculous watchdog groups. For every time a lawyer attempts to sue a game company on behalf of victims of crimes that are 'inspired' by movies, music, videogames, etc. The game companies should be able to produce sales sheets as proof to the contrary that not everyone who played their game decided to be mass murderer. End of story. Case thrown out. Pay the lawyer and court costs you lame-ass watchdog group. Start accepting the fact that a) YOU are responsible for your kids and their actions until they're 18, and b) just because one incident occurred doesn't make it a pandemic issue that needs sweeping, blanket legislation to eliminate the possibility of it every happening again.
Take responsibility for yourself, and how you've raised your kids. Stop expecting the government to do it for you just because you feel that you're entitled to be blameless cause your kid flipped out... /facepalm
heres another point for all to think about, when a person gets killed by a guy with a gun who do you blame, the gun ( videogame ), the company that made the gun ( the video game pub. ) or the guy that pulled the trigger ( the persone who bought the said item kid/adult ) ??? think about it ... pls coment on it
Yes, a theater can legally allow a minor to see a rated R movie in the United States. There is no legislation blocking it. The MPAA is a voluntary system put in place to assuage fears and stop laws from being introduced to limit movie sales.
The new CA law would call for legal enforcement against sales of certain media to minors.
Sorry, but they can't. MPAA rating list shows, "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult 17 or older with photo ID." While the adult doesn't have to see the movie with the minor, purchase of the ticket and entrance to the theater requires that an adult be present. The lawful enforcement of this is only for rated R and NC-17 movies. (Minors cannot see NC-17 movies in a theater, no exceptions.)
Exactly. Where people get these ideas that it is not legally enforceable sometimes me wonder. I mean, you have the net at your finger tips, you can't look it up before rendering a wrong opinion?