Some violent video games a no-no in Washington state

Lawmakers in Washington state have decided to ban the sale of some violent video games to minors. Note that it is only some and not all violent video games. Apparently some kinds of violence are ok, while others are not.

Actually, they've decided that only one kind of violence is inappropriate for minors - violence against law enforcement officers. So that's what they've now banned kids under 17 from buying. Video games depecting graphic violence against anyone else are still ok for minors to have.

Now, I'm not a fan of violent video games. In fact, I rather loathe them. My husband, on the other hand, thinks they're just dandy. He also loves really graphic horror movies, so it kind of fits as part of a theme, there, but he's also someone who gets a bit woozy at the sight of real blood, and seems pretty clear on the difference between fantasy violence and real violence, so I'm not terribly worried about him. All the same, though, I'd rather we not support companies that market extremely violent video games, so we've had more than a few intense conversations about the concept. Luckily, he likes to check out games by playing a demo first, and, so far, has found that after a bit, the "worst of the worst" are generally no fun to play, so the probem is averted.

Just because I know my husband can play violent video games without becoming a serial killer, though, doesn't mean I don't think they're not harmful in some cases. For example, there are many who blame the game "Doom" for turning Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold into the Columbine killers. While I don't think it did them any good, and probably did contribute, if only in part, to their actions, I don't believe that, by itself, and in the absence of other serious problems, it would have "made" them killers.

So, what is society to do? In the absence of any scientific proof that video games "make" kids violent, I don't think that there's much that can - or should - be done on a regulatory level. While I may be opposed to the games, I don't think the answer is banning them, or legally banning the sale to minors. This isn't an issue that that state should be involved in. It's a matter for parents, in particular, and for marketplace, in general, to regulate, though deciding what they will or won't purchase for their kids or for themselves.

In the case of Washington state's decision, I find it to be rather hypocritical. Their argument is that for kids to play games showing violence against law enforcement officers is harmful - yet they don't have the same concern about kids playing games that have them being violent against anyone else. I suppose it would be possible to make the argument that playing games showing violence against law enforcement personnel can lead to kids having less respect for them, but that same argument should apply to people in general - and I'm not aware of any rash of kids going after cops suddenly to indicate that there's a new problem developing.

Personally, I feel that games should be handled the same way that movies and music are: informative ratings that help parent judge the content of the game (which is already being done), and voluntary compliance by stores with the ratings system - meaning that stores would choose not to sell games rated "Mature" or "Adults Only" to kids. If stores fail to comply, then the community can work to bring them into compliance through economic pressure - also known as boycotts. They're a perfectly viable tool to use in a capitalistic society, and are the best way for the marketplace to let companies know what they will and won't support.