Debate - Should violent videogames be illeagalized or not?

I think they should not.it is the parents fault for letting the child play the game.we have seen bans like manhunt 2 in the UK and soon the USA.and GTA: San Andreas had to have a 'AO Rating upgrade' becaus of the "Hot Coffee" codes,I want to see where this goes.


« Last edited by Ace Of Spades 117 on Nov 25th 2007 »

I see nothing wrong with this topic. But elaborating on your initial post would be a good idea.

On 24-Nov-2007 Ace Of Spades 117 said:

I think they should not.it is the parents fault for letting the child play the game.we have seen bans like manhunt 2 in the UK and soon the USA.and GTA: San Andreas had to have a 'AO Rating upgrade' becaus of the "Hot Coffee" codes,I want to see where this goes.

I agree that they shouldn't be made illegal but I do think its unfair to completely blame the parents, most aren't exactly in the know about games so they might not simply know which games are violent. Obviously though parents should check to see whether the game is suitable for they children and if that involves doing abit of research into in then they should.

I suppose one of the main arguements for making violent games illegal is the fact that it supposedly makes young children believe that violence is acceptable and all the other stuff they always bring up, but I bet the numbers that actually do become violent are very small compared to the number that played the game, and even then that is probably along side other things, such as problems at home and whether they've got some sort of condition in the first place.

the way i see it, as long as the parents sit down and make sure that their child understands that it is just a game and not realistic in the real world than there shouldn't be a problem. as long as the kids are a certain age,than they should get to play any game they want. we already have violent games out on shelves,what's the difference?

I see your points,but its the parents deal,I think its partially the parents fault for not looking at the back,but Video Games shouldnt be illeagalized to me.They should put more ads for ESRB ratings like they used to.(6 months ago)

Krusty12: True,but understand,some kids have speacial needs (Ex.:A kid was born with ADD and his parents abandoned him),if they play the game,there would be a 65% chance of the child causing meyhem like in the game

« Last edited by Ace Of Spades 117 on Nov 25th 2007 »

They should definitaly not be illegalized its been proven videogames don't make people violent, for example not to long ago there was a case where some kid murdered his friend and everyone thought it was because of the game manhunt2 they claimed its violent content drove him to do it but in reality the kid didn't even own a copy the victim had it.


« Last edited by sworder1 on Nov 25th 2007 »

@Ace Of Spades 117: I would like to know where that 65% thing came from. I thought the ESRB ratings will still in use and as far as I'm concerned they do a pretty good job. I'm sure most parents do look at the back and that many make the right decisions on the games, its just that doesn't exactly make for good news and the like so you never hear about it, only the very rare cases where it may have a link.


@sworder1: To me thats just further proof of the governments seeing blaming violent games as a easy way out of these situations, instead of getting to heart of the problem that more than likely has something to do with another aspect that the Government doesn't want to admit its failing at.

well,the government is in a tight situation,they've got about 100 probs on their back.They blame kids for everything.

Video games don't make people violent. True, they can catalyse violent disorders, but only if it's already there. And in that case it should be noticed long before it boils over into murder and the kind of violence video games are often blamed for.

The reason they are blamed is the same reason death metal is blamed for similar things: the government needs to assign blame every time some deranged kid goes on a murder spree because there's a horde of screaming parents baying for blood and it's much easier to blame an obvious scapegoat than turn around and tell said screaming parents it's actually their fault for not looking after their children properly.

This is one of the reasons I think some form of parenting liscence should be obligatory. We need a liscense for just about everything else these days, so it seems strange that we don't need one for doing something which will effectively allow us to shape another human being's entire life. This was why I was pleased last week when our government here in the UK made parenting classes more available; it's a good step in the right direction, as far as I can see.

In the news report I saw on the subject, there was also a woman who chaired an organisation (unfortunately, I forget both her name and the name of the organisation) which was against this sort of thing, though. She was saying how she thought it was "condescending that she should be told a child psychologist knew how to raise her children better than she did". While I was hearing this, I was honestly wondering what she was thinking. Of course a child pyschologist is going to have a better idea of how to raise children than you; that's why he or she spent several years studying for a PhD, surely? Certainly, you'll know you're own children better than him or her, but there are still general things which hold true with just about any child which a child pyschologist will know that you might not. It just doesn't make sense to think otherwise. It's both arrogant and ignorant. And quite frankly, if this kind of people try to hold our society back, it's a crime as far as I'm concerned.

End long rant. Thank you for reading.

Shadow makes a really good point you don't just play a videogame then go on a killing spree than say "The videogame made me kill its not my fault I didn't know what I was doing". Unless the kid has some mental disorder then he sure as hell knows what he's doing but some people are to arogant to realize this just as Shadow said.

They shouldn't be made illegal but you should show an I.D. proving that you are eligible to play those games.

It's the kids idea to play the game, if hes underage, so what. I mean SURE he may go out on a killing rampage, but thats like 1 in a million.

They shouldn't be illegalized. The Government thinks that the video games are the source of all our violence but it's not. These violent games let us kill people, without actually going out and killing people. These games help bullied kids, and people in general. They help us calm down when we're ****** at someone, and want to beat the hell out of them.

And If they get rid of M games, or violent games what then?

I'm done here.

well some violent video games ARE manupulating underage children. And it IS still a problem when they kill someone. And some parents don't even care what the ratings are they just want their child to be happy. This isn't a serious problem but it can turn into one!!!

Actually, studies have shown (in New Scientist recently; I'd give you a link, but it'd be next to worthless unless you subscribe to that magazine) that violent video games in most cases actually reinforce moral values, by helping kids distinguish between reality and fiction. It's only when the kid is, in layman's terms, a nutjob that the reverse happens.

On 27-Nov-2007 PhilXZ said:

well some violent video games ARE manupulating underage children. And it IS still a problem when they kill someone. And some parents don't even care what the ratings are they just want their child to be happy. This isn't a serious problem but it can turn into one!!!

Obviously killing someone is a problem but you have a look at some the most notorious killers and I'll bet that most of it stemed from other reasons and that none were found to be a result of violent games. Also as SL has mentioned a kid must have mental problems in the first place if they go out killing because of a game, if that is the case then what if something more serious happens to them then they are likely to go killing people even more, you might as well just ban everything that may have ever caused a person to kill.

I say NO to illegalising "violent" games. For starters the PEGI rating system shows clearly what age allowance the game is, albeit, I've never followed it, but most of the time parents will buy these games for their child(ren) and they will ignore the ratings completely and in a sense it's the parent's fault since they obviously lack proper care for their child. Plus there are icons to represent what is in the game and the most obvious one is the Violence one and of course the age rating.
In any case it's only the really sad or dumb people who start going out trying the moves as if they were a character in a game.

To be honest, if you're determined that your children shouldn't see violence of any sort, you shouldn't have a television in your house, as your children are almost guaranteed to see some sort of violence on there. You shouldn't have Internet access, unless you're prepared to stand over them and check what pages they access. You shouldn't allow them to listen to music unless you've listened through and approved it first, and you definitely can't let them leave the house: who knows what they might see or hear?

You might have realised that the above is utterly ridiculous: sheltering your children won't do them any good, and the only reason it should ever be done is if your child does have a serious mental disorder, which, to be honest, you should notice if you're raising them properly.

Video games are just another scapegoat: it used to be rock music and violent films. Ultimately, in most cases of so-called "video-game-induced violence", the parents can be held to blame at the end of the day, even if the way the child in question chose to express their violent feelings was in a way they saw in a video game.

I'm not going to sugar-coat this. In my opinion, illegalizing violence in video games would be no less than ridiculous.

For one thing, I'll reinforce cheating-is-good's point. There have been times in my past when I was picked on and bullied, and I was terribly depressed because of it. Now, without an outlet of healthy relief, I would have either gone on a rampage and killed my bullies or simply held it in and became self-destructive. Instead, I got on Grand Theft Auto and went on a killing spree in an environment where it didn't matter, just to relieve some stress. Killing in an environment that is virtual and has no consequence versus actually causing harm to fellow human beings... I'd say the video game offered a healthy outlet, wouldn't you?

For another point, I'd simply ask what illegalizing it would accomplish. I admit, there are some people who murder or act violently because they saw it on a video game. The number of people who do this is outstandingly insignificant when compared to the total numbers of copies sold of the game in question, but the occasional murders can be blamed on violence in gaming. Now, we illegalize these video games. ... Does anyone really think that would stop people from playing them? These kids that thought it was okay to go out and kill people because they saw it on a game... you think they are going to be careful to enough to avoid something just because it is illegal? Illegalizing the games would not prevent psychopaths from getting their hands on them, it would just prevent sane people from using games as an outlet, which is totally counterproductive and would probably lead to even more violence in the real world. Basically, if illegalizing violence itself didn't help, what makes anyone think illegalizing potential causes of it would do any better?

Plus, as Shadow_Lord has correctly pointed out, mentally stable human beings do not try to reenact what they saw on their gaming consoles. Mentally stable people realize that it is just a gaming console. Mentally unstable people may misunderstand that.
Let's look at less violent video games. Off the top of my head, I'll just go with any Superman video game. Mentally stable people will realize that it is just a fictional game. Mentally unstable people might kill themselves by thinking they can jump off a building and fly. Therefore, Superman encourages suicide. Does that mean it should be illegalized? No, of course not, that would be absurd. So would illegalizing violent games.

Finally, I would argue that illegalizing violence in video games would actually provide another excuse for lazy parenting. The parents could simply tell their kids to follow the law, not actually having to worry about whether their kids understand why it is a law in the first place. Think about it. The kid isn't going to learn that violence is wrong, he's going to learn that video games are wrong. That doesn't improve his well being in any way. Why do it?

On 28-Nov-2007 Catharsis said:

To be honest, if you're determined that your children shouldn't see violence of any sort, you shouldn't have a television in your house, as your children are almost guaranteed to see some sort of violence on there. You shouldn't have Internet access, unless you're prepared to stand over them and check what pages they access. You shouldn't allow them to listen to music unless you've listened through and approved it first, and you definitely can't let them leave the house: who knows what they might see or hear?

You might have realised that the above is utterly ridiculous: sheltering your children won't do them any good, and the only reason it should ever be done is if your child does have a serious mental disorder, which, to be honest, you should notice if you're raising them properly.

Video games are just another scapegoat: it used to be rock music and violent films. Ultimately, in most cases of so-called "video-game-induced violence", the parents can be held to blame at the end of the day, even if the way the child in question chose to express their violent feelings was in a way they saw in a video game.

Your right with that last part (and the rest actually, lol). Its one thing if the parents buy the game, whether they know its content or not but to then allow it to develop until it actually begins to have an impact on the child then that is the fault of the parents for letting it get to that stage.

Linking that in with what Arsonist said even if they do buy a violent game so long as the parents reinforce to their child that it is wrong and care enough to take an interest in it then they shouldn't be a problem. If despite this a probelm starts to occur then is it not the parents resonsiblilty to make sure that it doesn't worsen?