# Consumer group rallies against anti-violent games legislation



## Ares (Nov 23, 2009)

*Consumer group rallies against anti-violent games legislation*

The Entertainment Consumers Association has denounced proposed US legislation enabling a study into the effects of violent video games in children.










Legislation S.134 would instruct the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the connection between the “exposure to violent video games and video programming and harmful effects on children”.

The ECA said it “feels that this is a distraction to finding the real cause of these events” and argued against recent comments from Senator Rockefeller, who has argued that games should not be protected by the right of free speech because they are “more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons”.

“The highest court of the land has reviewed the scientific research and concluded that video games do not cause violence,” the ECA said.

“The non-scientific personal opinion of the Senator should not get to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.”

Citing well-publicized statistics, the group argued that violent crime has been decreasing as game sales rise and that countries with higher video game per capita spend do not have as high rates of violent crime as the US.

“Researchers on both sides of the subject agree that you can’t study violence, only aggression. So there is no way to really come up with answers to the questions posed,” the group continued, adding several more critiques of the proposed study calling into question bias, the organizations involved, and the failure to recognize past studies.

“No matter the outcome, at least one side will not agree with the conclusions drawn by the study. The debate will continue, just as it has after previous studies.”

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has recently recommended S.134 be sent to the floor of the Senate to be voted on. US residents can join the ECA’s counter-movement.

Source: VG24/7


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

Don't video games have ratings? Similar to what is on CD's for music?

To me, as long as the ratings are in place, people know if they should buy if the game is appropriate for kids or not. Why would anyone buy a very violent game for a small kid? If rating isn't in place, then there is no way of knowing.


----------



## Ares (Nov 23, 2009)

Yep a rating system is in place for parents who are not to involved into the gaming culture, this happens every year where they try to link violent kids with games.


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

Often times from what I have seen in various studies, it isn't movies, music, or video games that determine the level of violence, it is the environment the kid is in. An abusive and violent home is often the first place and the area where the kid lives is second place. A tough neighborhood full of gangs and bullies will shape the kid.. 

People are quick to point to 3rd entities but often times fail to look at their own "home" for the why reasons.


----------



## SinCron (Dec 20, 2010)

Video games are just that, video games, not real life. If they want to look at the REAL factors in these kids lives, they should look at the real issues such as home life, school and other social factors. If anything in video games is affecting kids in a really negative way, it's the other people online. Rather than trying to lay blame with the easiest party to blame, they should start rallying against parents who buy their kids games that are rated M when it's like sticking them in front of an interactive R-rated movie. Especially since games like Call Of Duty are played online where there's voice chat and the extreme possibility of cyber-bullying (because there are many out there that pick on squeaky voiced kids that shouldn't be allowed to play the games in the first place). Parents need to take responsibility for taking the easy way out of parenting and start saying "No" if they don't think their kid is psychologically ready to play a game meant for those 17 and up. Video games don't create killers but they sure appeal to those with violent tenancies.

The same was done after Columbine and blaming metal for the actions of a few. It's almost like it physically hurts people to take responsibility for their own actions and political death for politicians that tell people that they're wrong. We're not electricity but we seem to be taking the path of least resistance and vainly hoping that it will lead us to the same place hard work would.


----------



## B- one (Jan 13, 2013)

We always played whatever games we wanted as kids and nothing bad came from it. I agree people want to blame others way to often. I need to go get my participant ribbon now.


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

Just to add here.. Recently on the news, Jim Carey stated he would not promote his new movie "Kick-### 2″ since it is too violent. He had no issues making the movie and getting paid but now he has issues with the violence and what it may do to the audience members. 

The other main actor in the movie is Chloe Grace Moretz, the sixteen-year-old actress who plays Hit Girl who stated correctly..


> "It's a movie," If you are going to believe and be affected by an action film, you shouldn't go to see 'Pocahontas' because you are going to think you are a Disney princess."


The world we live in..


----------



## B- one (Jan 13, 2013)

tripplej said:


> Just to add here.. Recently on the news, Jim Carey stated he would not promote his new movie "Kick-### 2″ since it is too violent. He had no issues making the movie and getting paid but now he has issues with the violence and what it may do to do the audience members.
> 
> 
> 
> The world we live in..


I really thought that was sad when heard that. Maybe we can guilt him into donating all his earnings from the movie to a anti violence charity.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I think there are many higher priorities for research than this. If funding were unlimited (hmmm, seems like the legislative and executive branches think it is) I would have no objection to funding research to gain a better understanding of how behavior is related to such activities, or is not.

A senator goes off on a tangent. The sad thing is that given the convoluted machinations of congress, should his vote be needed for something else, this kind of thing could easily be enacted piggybacked on some completely unrelated bill, even if the majority would clearly not agree.


----------

