This is another peice of legislation that’s harmless—unless it costs us any considerable amount of money. How about we focus on how we might get parents to steer their children away from overly violent video games. Not a joke, the Congress shouldn’t feel obliged to raise every child in the US.

Or, the parents can read the labels that are ALREADY ON THE GAME. If you’re too stupid to understand the current ratings which are near identical to film ratings, then you should not have reproduced in the first place.

Better yet, maybe we should encourage parents to actually be parents, and pay attention to what their kids are doing. This bill is stupid.

I completely agree, wednesday1131.

Video games don’t cause violent behavior. As somebody who has played “violent” games for years, since before it was fashionable to do so, I can say that it all comes down to being able to separate reality from fiction. If somebody has a problem with THAT then video games are the least of their worries and they need professional help.

But we need parents who pay attention to their kids and teachers who have time to care (smaller classrooms with less overhead/oversight and micromanagement) to spot these kinds of issues BEFORE they little sociopaths lose it completely.

This is a perfect example of wasteful legislation that only takes time and attention away from more important issues. Why are we worried about things like this, which are nothing more than embroidery, when we have a major financial crisis? Surely this Representative can find some better way to utilize both his time and his staff’s than drawing up stupid resolutions that impact a fraction of the rather small percentage of Americans who play video games (most of them being children who just need better parents and would never read the warnings anyway).

I don’t see this as harmless, actually. The fact that they want to force an opinionated label onto games rated Teen and above is pretty pathetic. It’s one thing to put it on first-person shooters, but quite another to use the rating to determine that it must be violent. What about sex games? Those are rated way above teen, but I doubt they lead to violent behavior.

a few points to consider:
(1) games are being distributed more and more electronically, thus no “packaging” exists label.
(2) beware of unintended consequences – will the stigma of a label mean that ratings are loosed up to avoid it? The ratings (“Teen” and above) are a voluntary industry standard.
(3) despite the above I am very concerned about video game violence and its affect on kids, and parents need the help of society in this and many other issues. This bill is simply not useful in addressing this very real issue.

As a gamer for over 20 years, and yet to go on a murderous rampage, this is another example of the government trying to parent for our nation’s parents. We already have ratings on games. Whether purchased in a brick and mortar store, or electronically they are there. They are easily understood E for “Everyone”, T for “Teen” (ages 13-17), M for “Mature” (ages 17+), and Ao for “Adults only” (ages 18+). Even if you don’t understand that, it is further explained on the box or in the online description of the game as to why a game was rated as it was. For example, “Strong Language”, “Blood”, “Sexual Content” are just a few examples of content descriptors explaining the rating. If your kid is 11, don’t let them bring home “Grand Theft Auto IV” and then blame video games for your 11 year old beating up some kid at school the next day. It was not the fault of the video game, but your failure as a parent to prevent them from having an experience that they should not yet have had.

The problem is that people want a scapegoat. If parents were really concerned about their kids playing games that they deem too violent then they would either use the current rating labels that already exist on the games (as previously mentioned) or they would do a little research on the games before they let their kids buy them.

This won’t do anything to magically stop parents from buying games for their kids or allowing them to buy them, if they cared then they’d use what already exists adding a “warning” isn’t going to do anything more than what the current ratings on the game packages does now.

This is a load of crap. Firstly, aggression has been linked to aggressive behavior, not videogames. I’ve played violent video games all my life and I’m not aggressive at all. I’ve never been in a fight, never fired a gun, etc.

This is about the government trying to force people to raise their kids properly. That isn’t the governments job!

I’m the first to admit that letting a five year old play a shoot ‘em up game is a bad idea. But I’d also be the last person to say that the government has any business telling parents what to do or not to do. I realize this would just require a warning label to be placed on games, but even that is ridiculous.

This bill is a waste of paper, and an over-stepping of federal authority.

What reputable study has linked playing violent video games to violent behavior? Even if there was a link it is not Congress’ place to be a parent. If you don’t think your kids ought to view the material don’t allow them to buy/play it. This isn’t difficult. There are already ratings. Is Congress just bored?

Is it not the parents job to make sure their children are not exposed to violence if that is what they choose? If you buy a game and it’s too violent for your tastes, return it to the store. Common sense people

I personally say M or above. T is going to say Final Fantasy X would be labelled as a game like Grand Theft Auto, when they don’t even compare! FFX’s label says “blood and gore,” but all I see are numbers! So the ESRB is getting stupider by the minute, and people need to look at the game packaging itself, i.e. read between the lines. Parents can decide to even take away games already boughten, and give them back when the child turns a certain age! The congressman should have said “M” instead of “T.”

This is an issue that has been up to bat for years, and the answer is still the same: Video games do not breed violence. And if we need anyone to tell us that, it would certainly not be Congress. Let’s worry about REAL issues like unconstitutional bills being passed by congress, rather than further intrude into the personal entertainment choices made by people and their families.

I think that is true. They should have a label. I am in complete support of this law. On a CNN article on November 3, 2008 (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-03/health/healthmag.violent.video.kids_1_violent-video-video-games-game-genres?_s=PM:HEALTH) it said: “Kids in both the U.S. and Japan who reported playing lots of violent video games had more aggressive behavior months later than their peers who did not, according to the study, which appears in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics…Many studies have linked violence in TV shows and video games to violent behavior…In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure. This was true even after the researchers took into account how aggressive the children were at the beginning of the study — a strong predictor of future bad behavior.” That is your proof of violence.