Hey, I know. Let's have an unbiased debate on keeping violent video games out of the hands of kids. But first, let's start it out with a guest who was in Columbine, faced death, and lost a sister and friends to the killers. That won't taint the debate at all (no offense to that poor kid).
Yes, the newly thin Star Jones (did she use DDR to lose that weight?) took on the violent video game debate pitting California state senator, Leland Yee vs. first ammendment and game industry lawyer, Katherine Fallow.
What is always missed in these debates is that parents CAN control what their kids are playing; whether it's via the parental controls on the consoles themselves or not letting their young children have $60 to buy a game (seriously, this isn't like buying candy at the local 7-11). In fact, Parents are often the ones buying these games for their kids.
What needs to happen is education (PSAs) on a massive national level, much like the V-Chip campaigns or the "More you know" campaigns.
Oh, and on the connection of real-life violence to violent video games...listen, if kids are messed up in the head and are attracted to this stuff, it's there to be had, whether it's movies, TV, or games. A normal kid playing a violent game is not turned into a violent criminal. We've always had messed up kids in our society; the animal torturers of each generation. We just need to figure out better ways to identify and help these kids.
And, finally, nobody is arguing that kids should be playing "M" rated games. We're just arguing that it's not up to the government to decide what's appropriate and what's not. The government cannot dictate taste.