All Pokémon games that involve battling are violent, because they involve attacking your opponent until they faint. Let's have that established first.
I like any law that reduces the chance of children becoming exposed to violent (and sexual) media.
The law itself may not help all that much, but it's an effort. I'm sure a few thousands kids won't be exposed to these bad influences if this law were to pass, and I find that that's a success.
It's a simple economics thing. Yes, you might deter 0.01% of kids playing those games from becoming violent, but at the same time, you're taking away the right to enjoy video gaming in all its glory from 99.99% of the gamers who are NOT violent as a result of violent gaming (the issues themselves are a lot more complex than what you can solve with a simple banning). Is it really worth it to take away some enjoyment from the overwhelming majority to only stop a few people? No, it's not.
There are plenty of other bad influences and they're just as deadly. What if some of these kids are raised by abusive parents, and to them, violent video games are a form of outlet for aggression (like sports and martial arts are for some people) keeping them from doing violent things to other people? When you take an action in favor of or against something, there are unseen opportunity costs, and sometimes, the benefits of the prohibition are not worth the things that come out as a result. The best example of this is alcohol prohibition in the United States.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is full of the same ideological garbage that exists everywhere else in the country. They're supposed to INTERPRET the Constitution, not make laws. Lately they've been doing too much of the latter and not enough of the former. The founding fathers didn't want the government to micromanage people's lives, which is what this law entails. The government is supposed to govern people in a fair way. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe instead of worrying so much about video games, the government should focus on the trillions of dollars we owe to every other country in the world, and try to end peacefully some of the foreign entanglements that are destroying America's image to the world.
Oh please, like Silent Hill and Resident Evil are gonna cause much damage to a 10-year old. They have enough of an imagination already.
........................................... no comment.
What I have a problem with is how general their definition of a violent game is. Whats that? Well over half the games on store shelves?
Even Pokémon and Mario Kart are violent. Without violent games, I'd be stuck with playing.... um.... Harvest Moon, Animal Crossing, ...... Hamtaro.... That's about it.
As you very well know, Grand Theft Auto has been a video game of great controversy when it comes to safety among children. This is not an exception. :( Like I said, very outdated, but an incident nonetheless.
I know a lot of people who play Grand Theft Auto and they would never even hurt a fly. Well, they would hurt flies, but you know what I mean.