Here’s one of the icons in the movie industry - Stephen King. We all know him and if you don’t then I guess you are not watching movies at all. So here, Stephen King gives his opinion about politicians trying to put restrictions on the so-called “violent (video) games".
Here are some excerpts I found very useful for our local politicians claiming that Gamers will be War-Freak Adults. Parents, you should read this as well.
videogames are not my thing. Nor am I some kind of raving political nutcase. But when I heard about HB 1423, which happens to be a bill pending in the Massachusetts state legislature, I still hit the roof. HB 1423 would restrict or outright ban the sale of violent videogames to anyone under the age of 18. Which means, by the way, that a 17-year-old who can get in to see Hostel: Part II would be forbidden by law from buying (or renting, one supposes) the violent but less graphic Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
Which is actually true, laws can restrict the younger generation from being able to play “violent (video/online) games” but they still have unlimited access to Rated-X shows, in fact, Rated-PG shows that should have been rated as ‘X’.
what makes me crazy is when politicians take it upon themselves to play surrogate parents. The results of that are usually disastrous. Not to mention undemocratic.
He even said, “it seems to me that the games only reflect a violence that already exists in the society.” Which is true, these games are the result of the reality. Just watch any news - be it morning, afternoon, prime time, or midnight, it is almost always about violence - massacre, hit-and-run, killings, name it. Because we have laws that makes these things illegal, these games were developed to “satisfy” the human need of “I want to experience that without doing it for real” (unconsciously or consciously; unintentional or intentional). Could it be possible then that these games helped in curbing real-life violence the past years?
Just look at this: (from Gamers - Future War Freak Adults)
Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use.
It could be because of various reasons, for example, because the younger generation are playing video games today. Their exposure to bad-influenced fraternities and gangsters dropped dramatically. Still, the point is, video games was one, if not the ultimate, reason.
Back to Stephen King…
And if there’s violence to be had, the kids are gonna find a way to get it, just as they’ll find a way to get all-day shooters like No Country for Old Men from cable if they want. Or Girls Gone Wild, for that matter.
Oh yes, that is definitely true. It is human nature - the more an individual is restricted (especially by unnecessary laws), the more we get curious about it. He goes on saying:
Can parents block that stuff? You bet. But most never do. The most effective bar against what was called ‘’the seduction of the innocent'’ when this hot-button issue centered on violent comic books 60 years ago is still parents who know and care not just about what their kids are watching and reading, but what they’re doing and who they’re hanging with. Parents need to have the guts to forbid material they find objectionable…and then explain why it’s being forbidden. They also need to monitor their children’s lives in the pop culture — which means a lot more than seeing what games they’re renting down the street.
Didn’t I say that before already? This article: Is being a gamer a sign of immaturity?
Here is Stephen’s ending words:
What really makes me insane is how eager politicians are to use the pop culture — not just videogames but TV, movies, even Harry Potter — as a whipping boy. It’s easy for them, even sort of fun, because the pop-cult always hollers nice and loud. Also, it allows legislators to ignore the elephants in the living room. Elephant One is the ever-deepening divide between the haves and have-nots in this country, a situation guys like Fiddy and Snoop have been indirectly rapping about for years. Elephant Two is America’s almost pathological love of guns.
It was too easy for critics to claim — falsely, it turned out — that Cho Seung-Hui (the Virginia Tech killer) was a fan of Counter-Strike; I just wish to God that legislators were as eager to point out that this nutball had no problem obtaining a 9mm semiautomatic handgun. Cho used it in a rampage that resulted in the murder of 32 people. If he’d been stuck with nothing but a plastic videogame gun, he wouldn’t even have been able to kill himself.
Don’t blame it on video games and online games, before that you were all blaming Japanese Anime, even before that you were blaming Dungeons & Dragons, and so on. What’s next? My dear Parents, never make your work as an excuse for not being able to watch your kids. If you truly love your kids, you will watch them and let them feel you love them. Material things like providing them what they want or getting them to school will never be equal to the attention, guidance, and love that you can provide them.
We all are kids once, we all know what we were looking for, wanting for, what we need that time - the attention, guidance, and love of our parents. Think about it yourself, have you ever considered all the material things and reasons given by your parents as truly “their love for you"? Like for example, “I work because I want to provide things for you", “I work because I want you to have a good education", “I do this and that for you", “it’s all for you my dear child"? Or you once thought that being with them is what true love is?
But that’s just my opinion and point-of-view, based on my own experience. I’m sure, there will be people who will tell me, “you’ll know once you become a parent", or the famous Filipino saying/proverb: “Papunta ka pa lang, pabalik na kami” (While you’re still on your way, we’re already on our way back)… [thanks to Lia for the translation: visit her blog here]
Quotations from one of my previous posts:
The statements put forward by the law’s supporters claiming a link existed between video game violence and real world violent behavior were refuted by the judge: It could just as easily be said that the interactive element in video games acts as an outlet for minors to vent their violent or aggressive behavior, thereby diminishing the chance they would actually perform such acts in reality.
The court said, “Dr. [Craig] Anderson’s studies have not provided any evidence that the relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior exists.” It added that the evidence introduced alleging that new brain mapping studies show a link between violent games and aggressive thought is equally unpersuasive. “The research not only fails to provide concrete evidence that there is a connection between violent media and aggressive behavior, it also fails to distinguish between video games and other forms of media,” the Judge wrote.