I have no problem with any of this.  As long as its the parents that do this and not the government stepping into act as a pseudo parent.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Both things are censorship which is unconstitutional in the US.

"Video games should not use human or other living targets or award points for killing, because this teaches children to associate pleasure and success with their ability to cause pain and suffering to others."

Video games have ratings for a reason. Besides, most shooting/violent games don't have "pain and suffering," they have 1 shot 1 kill for bad guys. Besides, they're bad guys. You should associate pleasure/success with the ability to kill bad guys and thwart their evil plans. Heck, just beating other players in Mario Kart causes the same feelings, the "haha I beat you loser," coupled with violence. You are rewarded for attacking others just for a small trophy, forced to fight against your friends with the soul pupose of beating others for your enjoyment.

I mean, good advice, monitor your kids game playing until you're sure that they know enough about (relative) right and wrong to be able to not be blindly influenced by a stupid piece of media. However, there isn't anything wrong with letting your kids (there doesn't seem to be much of an indicator about what ages this thing is talking about) having their own TV or computer. Just be a parent, raise your kid, don't let the TV or PC raise them.

*EDIT* However, they seem to be totally retarded. They assume that violent video games are bad for kids, assume that sedentary activity, no matter the amount of exercise otherwise, is bad. Simply being a parent generally is enough to know if your kid is gonna turn into a psychopath, or just a bad kid, they don't need to make video games (like D&D and comic books and rock and roll before it) into the next bad guy.

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

More political BS recommendations that will be ignored. The AAP should get a life.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

 Should we also demand Disney stop killing off the villain in each movie because it teaches kids the only solution to deal with bad people is capital punishment? 

The distribution of movies and games IS already age-appropriate, but parents can, you, know, override it. Maybe educating parents not to be such apathetic numbskulls about what their children see and play would help. So I do agree with encouraging them to actually VIEW what their kids are playing/watching.

Video games should not use human or other living targets or award points for killing, because this teaches children to associate pleasure and success with their ability to cause pain and suffering to others.

I started thinking about this, and even assuming children learned from video games the way this is suggesting, it still falls apart.  Killing humans is rarely the "goal" of the video game.  The goal is to rescue the princess, save the world, etc.  The killing is a means to an end.  A more reasonable deduction would be that these games don't teach children to enjoy inflicting pain, but rather to see violence as a solution to their problems.

Of course, there's a counter to this, too.  In video games you are rarely encouraged to kill non-aggressive character, if you're even given the option.  99.9% of the time, the people you're supposed to kill want to kill you, too.  Mowing down civilians in the GTA games never gets you rewards.  Sure you might pick up a little cash, but it's insignificant amounts, and not worth the police breathing down your neck.  Any enjoyment you get out of it put there by you, not the game.  So we need to adjust the "lesson" again.  Violent video games teach children to use violence as a solution to already violent problems.

But wait, there's more.  Excluding games like GTA, (which invariably are rated 'M' and should therefore be removed from this discussion) the enemies are almost always evil.  They're not just antagonists, they're <i>bad guys</i>.  So now our lesson is: Violent video games teach children to use violence against bad, violent people as a solution.

So unless someone can show me evidence of an increase in children attacking bullies, abusive partents, or something in that nature, I'm unconvinced.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/124/5/1495#R4

"The evidence is now clear and convincing: media violence is 1 of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression. Therefore, pediatricians and parents need to take action.^{4 "}

So, what evidence did they have to back up this claim?  Note the little number 4.

4. Strasburger VC. Go ahead punk, make my day: it's time for pediatricians to take action against media violence. Pediatrics. 2007;119 (6). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/119/6/e1398

Do you know what that is? 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/119/6/e1398

Note the missing word in their above resource reference.  "Commentary". 

Opinion, speculation, theory.  Which is what that resource article is.  Here is the beginning of that article:

"News flash! Researchers have just found that element "X" contributes between 10% and 30% to the occurrence of heart disease. What happens next? Well, of course, the manufacturers of element X claim that there is no link and that the research is spotty anyway; Hollywood writers and producers deny that element X ever appears in any of their films, and if it does, it is never "gratuitous," nor can anyone interfere with their right to show it, which is guaranteed in the First Amendment; and pediatricians continue to counsel parents about whether car seats should face forward or backward but apparently could not care less about element X."

In fact, the entire article smoke screens and plays the shell game, mixing and matching everything it possibly can to mislead the reader. 

The article does say that media isn't the only cause of real world violence.  It also hints at the complexity of the indivdiual.  Still, it strives, just as both articles do, to mislead the reader into believing we are clones.  That what affects one individual will affect another.

The references, just as in the Leland Yee legal document, claim that there are thousands of studies.

There aren't.  There a few, with a great many others, claiming to be studies, patting the backs of the original studies, interpreting those studies, patting the backs and interpreting the "studies" looking at the original studies, interpreting, reinventing them, lying and deceiving others about them.

These are incompetent boobs who, seeking to fill an agenda, pretend to do studies, but failing miserably because they have no real clue about comparison and contrast and preventing the false view of unique effects by studying broad expsoures to various individuals, and evaluating the complexity of each individual.

These incompetent boobs set out to come up with a result, and they came up with the result they wanted to, because that's what they were looking for.  They didn't actually do research.  They put together questions and trials, limited what they wanted to look at, and ensured the results would turn out the way they wanted them to turn out.

And then some other baffoon comes along, claims they are going to do a "study", looks at the results of other "studies" that only produce the incompetent results they WANT to use to "prove" their study and results, and claims it's all new and original and yet another among the "thousands" of studies done on the subject.

The joke used to be that there was a law firm called "Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe".

Apparently, the firm has moved into medical and mental health research as well.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Although these people are absolutely out of their minds, it is a good idea not to have TVs in kids rooms, especially very young children.

Just not for reasons related to moonbat conspiracy theories. 

An 8-yr old shouldn't be playing Gears of War 2 in the first place (theoretically, of course). So, a post-AAP advice retroactive removal of said Gears 2 shouldn't exist.

This is basically saying parents can compensate for crappy parenting in the beginning with slightly less crappy parenting later.

They should be promoting pro-activeness, not re-activeness. This is, of course, all in theory; and not necessarily my point of view. I'm stating how their view should be done since they can't do it properly.

Last time we took my son to the pediatrician, we got a lecture about how firearms in the household are dangerous and all that other bullshit.  The pediatrician then rattled off a bunch of 'stats' that are all either A) made up by the brady campaign or Kellerman or B) skewed by the same group.  The doctor's office is no place for political posturing and a poor place for parenting advice.

How about Pediatrics groups stick to doing their goddamn job and let me parent my child.  If children are coming in with strange injuries that hint of abuse, then they can take a more active role, but if they don't like that I have guns in the house, they need to learn to keep their motuhs shut.