Why do people have no problem when consumers try to circumvent the rules (prohibiting minors from playing Mature rated games without expressed consent from guardians), but you get angry when Best Buy tries to stop people from circumventing the rule? I see a lot of discussion about whether this is legal or not, and I think it's irrelevant; the point is that Best Buy had clear and logical evidence (whether that evidence led to correct conclusions or not is irrelevant) that these people were trying to get around the rules, and they stopped it. That is good. They are enforcing the rules! Yay! Why aren't we celebrating? Why aren't we saying: "thank goodness, a store is getting tough about enforcing the age-of-use rules for games?" 

This really bothers me, personally, as there doesn't seem to be any way for the law to win this. 

We complain when parents aren't educated consumers, but then when we put a system in place that is specifically intended to help protect children and educate parents about content, we complain when that system is actually enforced.

Which is it? Do we want to complain that the parents don't know enough, or do we want to complain that a system is being put in place to help them safeguard their children and inform them about what their children are doing? You can't have it both ways. 

Have you ever seen or heard about a kid asking a person -- a brother, an older friend, or even a stranger who the child pays -- to go in to a seven eleven or some other such store and buy alcohol for him? I've seen it done, and I'd bet others here have too.

It happens all the time. And if a Seven Eleven clerk suspected that such a transaction was occuring, would you have a problem with them trying to enforce the age limit? Do you honestly think it's bad that the Clerk would actively try to prevent people from circumventing the law? 

Because that's precisely what this situation is like.  

(Clearly this is a hot button issue for me, so I'm posting three times in a row with three separate points).

If Clerks aren't supposed to make any such decisions, this exemplary transaction could easily occur:

A 10 year old boy goes in to Best Buy on his own. He goes over and picks up a copy of Grand Theft Auto IV upon its release. He comes to the counter, asks to buy it, and is told no. So he goes to the next older person in line, gives him the money right in front of the Clerk's face, and asks him to buy it. The guy agrees, purchases the game, and promptly hands the game to the kid.

Technically, the older guy bought it with his money, without the kid having anything to do with the transaction. Again, technically speaking, that doesn't break the rules. But if this sort of transaction is allowed to occur -- if Clerks aren't allowed to make decisions about who the game is really for, instead of who is technically purchasing the game -- then these rules are completely worthless. Absolutely and totally meaningless.

Celebrating what to be exact?

You know, we have these laws that say kids under 17 can't get into a rated-R movie, or they can't buy an M-rated game, yet there is always that other loophole, movie rental stores.

To me the "uneducated parent" is the parent who tries to circumvent their kids' lives, thinking they are accomplishing something when in fact they don't have 24/7 surveillance on the kid, and that very same child could be watching something on cable, the internet, or at a friend's house.

I'm against these video game laws; I have extreme prejudice towards them.

And no Bod, refusing to sell to people of legal age because the cashier thinks they will give it to a minor may be fine in a few states, but I know that's not the case everywhere, especially here.

Question: what, precisely, do you think we should do to stop kids from playing these games? Because you are correct that children cannot possibly be watched by even vigilant parents 24/7, let alone parents who are lower class who may be working 40+ hours a week each. 

I'm all for listening to other options, because I don't love the solution either.  

Stop them?! Let them! I think it's better having a parent allow their kids play the games and talk with them about it. How can parents communicate with these kids if they think their child is shielded away from that kind of stuff? A parent in the know is better than a parent in the void.

It's fair to say your position is the extreme minority -- very few people are arguing for aboslutely no restrictions.

You're welcome to have that opinion, but it's definitely not what most people want. I have arguments against your position, but it's a 100 page, mean, nasty can of worms we're opening, and I'd prefer not to.  

I'd be curious to see what it is, as I too have written a thesis about how video games and movies don't have that much of an impact as people might expect. There is more psychological damage done when a parent flatout forbids it because it is wrong, yet the kid will get a chance of playing it or watching it, and will still be met with this forbiddance from the parent(s). 

Let's propose that there is this nationwide curtailing of selling video games to minors, do you still think there won't be an outcry from some parents over the violence in video games? There has to be a dissenting voice now because if we just so happen to bend just a little, what is to say that we won't expect the same of what's happening in Britain where a few lawmakers will decide if a said game should see the light of day? They make it seem detrimental and bad now, later they could make it seem vile and corrupt, and it started with a simple rating for games, and now we might be facing a nationwide ban of selling games to minors. Who is to say that this won't go further?

Again, just because the road is getting paved it doesn't mean that there won't be cracks: Kids will still be able to rent games and movies, a few friends may have it because their parents bought it for them, or an older sibling or relative might be playing that game that has become "taboo."

That's pretty crazy, I live in Sweden and I have bought M-rated movies and games since I was like 11 years old, we dont see it as "law" here, just a recommandation that the game isnt fitting for a child, but if you dont want to follow it you dont have to. Is that illegal by the store in question or can they still sell to people under-age if they want to?

Why are people so freaking scared of mature-games and stuff in the U.S, hell, I watched alot of action movies and played alot of mature rated-games when I was a child and all my friends did aswell, none of them are violent or breaking the law or anything. Let the child talk about the games with their parents and make sure they realize its fiction and they'll be fine, I hate this "Videogames are evil"-bullshit, videogames doesnt make killers or rapists or anything else crazy, bad parenting does.

smg should be rated +16 you see his bones when he is electrified