[Cerek]

There have been several studies showing a link between what kids see and how they act. Kids learn by imitating the behavior of others. The younger they are, the more impressionable and likely they are to imitate the most recent thing they've seen. A study of Kindergarten kids several years ago looked at this. When kids watched Barney the Dinosaur, they spent the next day playing "sharing games" among themselves. When they watched Power Rangers, they spent the next day playing "fighting games". So, yes, media DOES have an impact on how children behave.

Having said all that, I think it's a good idea NOT to sell violent video games to young kids, but it would be useless signing such an act into law because it would be too difficult to enforce. Oh, they might actually be able to enforce not selling the game to a young kid (WalMart won't sell "R" rated movies (and even some PG-13 ones) unless the customer shows valid ID), but that doesn't mean the kid won't gain access to the game some other way. In my own situation, my oldest son is 13 and his closest brother is 11 (soon to be 12). The youngest of the three will be 8 soon. There are some games I allow the two older boys to play that I feel are inappropriate for the younger one, but the reality is that the 8 yr old WILL see (and play) ANY game his brothers get, so I have to keep that in mind when I buy games or allow the boys to buy one.

I agree with both sides of the debate, up to a point. I have seen for myself how violent video games can have at least a short term effect on the behavior of my kids and I think it is a good idea to restrict access to these games. But I also agree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the parent(s). They are the ones with the final authority to tell their kids "No, you can not have that game."