|
Media Hysteria Over Gaming Violence
Last Updated - 8.17.2000
I'm tired of hearing all of this media hysteria over video games being too violent and kids being affected from it. It's really not the games nor the kids' fault that shootings involving youngsters are occurring. If anything, the fault lies in the parents.
If you let your 12 year old son buy a game with a Mature ESRB rating, then you better watch him and teach him a thing or two about games being games and real life being screw-up-once-and-suffer-forever. That's what those damn ratings are for. Mature means that the game is preferably for 17+ year olds or simply mature people. But if the player is younger, a parent is needed in order to purchase it. So if you don't like gaming violence, then don't buy it for your child.
But let's say your son bought the game online with your ignorant approval. And let's say he plays a few games and get totally washed up in it. In fact, he's so in to it that at dinnertime, he launches beans at you hoping they'll explode just like their virtual grenade launcher counterparts. We've seen it happen before, but only to 5 year olds.
But what happens when the 12 year old finds a pistol in the house similar to the main handgun in the game? What the hell happens exactly? Well for most educated kids, they'll put it back where they found it. But for the "ignant" son, hell is exactly what happens. He'll take it outside and soon enough, your son will truly be the "frag-master" he's been aspiring for so long. And he'll be bragging how he finally beat Donald, his rival next door.
Sounds like the blame lies in the son and the game, but here's a look at who's to blame. How did the kid find the pistol in the house? Little doubt that it belonged to his parents and was easily accessible.
Remember the shooting back down there in Arkansas or Alabama? The two boys, no older than 12 years of age, had weapons up the wazoo. And the most instrumental ones, the rifles, were hunting rifles that belonged to their father. Yes, the people down there are hunters, but to let some young boys have access to rifles without parental supervision is just plainly irresponsible.
"Naw, I trust the boy. I just don't trust them games he play."
Keep talking ya fool.
And if you have to kill someone after playing some Quake or Half-Life, then you're messed up in the noggin. You've got beads for brains. Any sane person wouldn't go on a killing spree merely by playing ultra-violent games.
But of course, you might feel the need to kill someone when you get fragged the second you respawn, but doesn't that happen when you get totally dominated in a peaceful game of tennis? The frustration builds up, but it can happen to just about anything you suck
at.
I also hear Vice-President Al Gore denouncing "entertainment violence" in his campaign run. What's his deal? Everybody knows that he's going to win and that he doesn't give a rat's ass about gaming violence. He's also in no position to talk about "entertainment violence". Just look at his name! He hereditarily supports it!
So don't blame violent games being too violent. They're just games preferably for mature people and not young kids. Even if your kids were to play them, you should trust the fact that they won't kill you since weapons in the house are hidden and in high places, and that your kid has been given the precautions of the dangers of weapons.
Simply remember that: "Virtual violence is okay, but real violence isn't."
Back
| Comments
|
