Consider two examples:
A: A 12 year old asks his parents to get him the latest GTA. The parents say “We don’t want you playing those games until you’re older.” The kid gets mad, but relents. The next day, he goes to the mall with his friends and picks up a copy. He plays only when he is at his friend’s house or when his parents are asleep.
B: A 12 year old asks his parents to get him the latest GTA. The parents say “Sure thing!” The next day, the parents pick up the game and present it to their kid. The whole family spends the night running over little old ladies and beating police officers with rubber phalluses. A grand time is had by all!
Now, ask yourself: Which example is more commonplace? Now ask: The parents of which example stand to benefit more from the criminalization of selling M-Rated games to minors? Do you understand why this law would help more people than it momentarily hinders?
The key flaw of Kappamerc’s logic is that parents who are fine with their kids playing GTA and Bioshock still have the authority to let them. They simply have to purchase the game themselves. Heaven forbid they actually have to go all the way to the store and hold the case in their hands. Think about how gamers in general will benefit: If selling the games direct to kids are actionable, then less clerks will be inclined to do it. Less incidents where parents find their kids playing these games behind their backs means the industry itself will gain a more responsible reputation. The parents still have control over their kids; the gamers still get to play all the M-Rated games they wish; the developers get less hate letters. Everybody wins.
PS:
This ain’t helping your argument.