The slippery slope argument you're proposing here I don't agree with (simply because I rarely find slippery slopes valid -- most of the times, we can draw a line in the sand and stick with it, and I believe we can do that here). 

However, the psychological impact is a position I can agree with, and I believe has some merit. However, keep in mind that the ESRB serves two purposes; the first is to literally restrict the flow of violent games to minors (which is what you object to) and the other is to inform parents of the contents of the box inside so that they can make decisions for themselves what is appopriate for the children.

It sounds like we can both agree that the latter goal -- informing parents -- is a noble one. As to the former, I'd argue, most importantly, that the psychological impact will vary from child to child. I might be willing to believe that for many or even most, the impact is greater when a game becomes forbidden fruit; however, I assume we can both agree that in some cases for some children, it is the reverse. 

If we can agree on that much, consider this. If there are no restrictions whatsoever:

Those who wish to prevent their children from playing these games are considerably impaired. It is extremely difficult, by both my admission and yours, to stop children from playing these games by yourself as a parent, because you cannot watch these children 24/7.

Those who would allow their children from playing these games are not impaired at all.

Now, if there are some restrictions:

Those who wish to prevent their children from playing these games are assisted.

Those who would allow their children to play these games are only mildly inconvenienced; instead of the children buying the game themselves, the parent can go and buy it for them.

Or, put more succinctly; having no restrictions on these games greatly inconveniences those who do not wish their children to play these games, while having some restrictions is only mildly inconvenient to those who are willing to let their children play these games.

As such, I'm willing to personally be mildly inconvenienced (I would let my own children play these games, if I ever had children, and if they wanted to) in order to greatly assist those who do not share my views.

A similar example to the phenomenon I'm describing above would be handicap parking spaces; there are significantly less handicapped people than non-handicapped people, so one might argue that majority rules and tough luck crippled guys.

However, I think most reasonable people would agree that it is a very mild inconvenience to that majority of people (we can't park in the two closest spaces to the front entrance of a store) and it greatly assists those in need, so it's an inconveniance I'm willing to live with. 

In the case we're discussing, I'm willing to take a very mild inconvenience to assist the parents who do not have the same views that I do. 

Well, I can see your point, but I don't share the view that a video game is dangerous for a child and I don't see any point in "protecting" children from it. I do think its important that the child understands its fiction though, but if you're gonna raise you're child going around and saying everything is bad and don't allow them to do anything they'll end up hating you and doing it anyways. I think its better to have a liberal view and just be informative about the content.

EDIT. Then again, you raise your children they way you see fit. That's just my opionion how to do it. 

 This is your position. Other people believe differently, and do believe video games are dangerous for children, and I respect their opinions.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you can't accomodate them. I don't agree with a lot of people. I'm not Christian, for example, but I'm quite grateful that I'm not forced to be one in this country. 

 I respect their opinons aswell, but just because some people have that opinion I don't think it should be un-allowed for me to buy a M-rated game for a minor since I don't think it's dangerous for him. I think it should be a recommendation for what age its aimed for, but it shouldnt be illegal or whatever for a child under that age to play the game, since alot of people dont share the view that video-games are dangerous for children, and its hasnt been proved that it is. I don't like that authorites tell me what I can and can't do (in cases like this, not in obvious stuff like murder etc etc.), let the people make up their own minds about stuff like this that is a matter of opionion and doesnt hurt anyone else.

You can buy an M rated game for a minor, as long as you are his legal guardian.

You see the problem with just letting it be an adult, right? If we're going to have these restrictions at all, it must be the legal guardian, as otherwise the laws are so easy to circumvent it's laughable. Obviously there are still loopholes, but that's a gigantic, gaping loophole that even the dimmest of 10 year olds could jump through.

Any parent can buy his or her children the games he or she deems appropriate. These restrictions aren't very harsh.

Terrible...is that story true?
The plastic bag one is unrealistic!

Well bah, I had quite a few nice responses (and even one lengthy one I've been working on all morning between compiles) but Bodhestva pretty much sums up my thoughts perfectly.

I completely agree that a parent should be able to raise their kid as they see fit (to a certain extent of course) I have no intention of telling people how to raise their kids. I don't particularly agree with let kids see whatever they want at any point in their lives because kids are, well, kids and don't have the maturity for some things and should be sheltered from some things at certain points in their lives.

Yes, there are oodles and oodles of ways to get around the ratings system but that doesn't mean we should abandon it completely. As Bod said, it's assists those people that wish to use it and that's the point.

Bod, why is that there is a "wider inconvenience" for those who do not wish for their kids to play these types of games, while parents who are more liberal to the matter only get a "mild inconvenience?"

I think it's safe to say that when a kid wants a game, it's not the child with the cash, but the parent, and if a parent is concerned with what their kids are playing, then why can't they purchase or go along with their child to see what game he/she wants? Simple: Don't give the kid cash. If you want to be "over-protective," then don't do a half-assed job doing it.

This law that you approve of isn't "bulletproof," although the same can be said of most laws, but they do work to a degree. The main reason these laws are in place is so kids don't play "mature" games, but kids are still finding ways to play them, as you also agree with me.

You can put as many labels you want on the game, you can put as many descriptions as you want on the game, but there still will be parents who will still feel that it's inadequate. We now have an "E for ages 10 and up," and there are a few talks here and there that there might be one more that will go in between T and M. The best way to deal with these parents is to have them go out and judge what is appropriate for their kids themselves.

As much as you may sympathesize with parents and legal guardians, I tend to be put them under strict scrutiny.

One fabulous example sadly happened in my state: Grandmother buys GTA for her grandson, and she gets upset that the kid had a chance to see some tities and some sex within the game. I know damn well had that box stated that their was "nudity" and "sexual material," there wouldn't have been a lawsuit because, well,... it's on the box. Grandmother Goose bought her grandson a game that contained over-the-top violence, where you can shoot cops, run over pedestrains, beat on hookers, yet, some 3D tities were responsible for her being concerned over the well-being of her grandkid?!

If you are going to be lenient on the matter... then don't do a half-assed job doing it.