the Supreme Court of the United States listened to the oral arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The Supreme Court is reviewing a California law that targets video games that give the player the option of “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” A game is covered by the law if it displays acts that a “reasonable person” would find appeals to “a deviant or morbid interest of minors,” if the content would violate community standards on what minors should see, if the content lacks serious value, and if the player can inflict injury through “torture or serious physical abuse” of a human-like figure.The Supreme court argues that exposing certain materials to minors warp kids and turn them violent, others argue that the possible law is violates freedom of speech.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/04/26/2010-04-26_supreme_court_video_game_case_court_to_decide_if_state_can_ban_sale_of_violent_g.html
I believe that banning violent video games until a certain age would be extremely unconstituaional and that it would be violating freedom of speech.  Parents should be the judge of what their children should beable to play not the government. Another point I could make is that there has not been any scientific studies that have confirmed that violent video games alter the way kids think. If anything should be changed it should be the way parents handle deciding what they will allow their kids to buy and what they buy for them.