Views on Violence in Video Games

CBS News' GameCore site is running a series of articles discussing the ever recurring debate about video games and violent behavior. They start with prominent anti-gaming lawyer Jack Thompson. From the article: "The heads of six major health care organizations testified before Congress that there are hundreds of studies that prove the link. All the video game industry has are studies paid for by them, which are geared to find the opposite result. Lawyers call such experts 'whores.'" Tim Buckley, of the webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del, had the chance to put forth an opposing viewpoint on the subject. According to the site there will be more coverage on this topic next week from other gaming community members.

Comments

violent games

[dmf415]

Here's a study that was done...interesting?

Recent medical brain scan studies at Harvard, Indiana University, and elsewhere prove that adolescents' brain functions are damaged by a steady diet of violent images. The heads of six major health care organizations, including the American Medical, Pediatric, and Psychiatric Associations have all testified before Congress in June 2000 that violent entertainment contributes to teen violence. Video games are literally "murder simulators" teaching our kids how to kill.

Re:violent games

[Anonymous Coward]

...

And we aren't programmed by nature to be confrontational? You've never seen little kids shouting at each other/their parents?

'Monkey see, monkey do' applies more to reality than video games. Kids do what they see their parents/peers/teachers doing long before they do what they see on a video screen.

Which isn't to say that there's no link whatsoever between observed violence and real violence, but the factors are much larger than just the video games/movies.

We are, by nature, confrontational. Never forget that. Some of us spar with words, some with horseplay, some with guns. Do not pin societal problems on specific symptoms of those problems.

Instead, ask why we enjoy killing people on video screens. Ask why kids bring knives and guns to school. Ask why people live in fear of things that will likely never happen to them. Ask why we've created violent black markets and glorified them in various forms of media.

Video games are a drop in the bucket...

Re:violent games

[notque]

Video games are literally "murder simulators" teaching our kids how to kill.

If you are going to use a term like literally then you need to include accurate statements.

Video games have nothing to do with murder. Violent video games might.

Violent video games, do not teach kids how to kill, only to be more used to violents.

Grand Theft Auto never taught me how to kill someone with a chainsaw, only that it was possible. As if I needed to realize that.

I think that it makes children less sensitive towards violence, in video games.

What effect it has outside I bet is largely determined by the teachings of the parents.

Re:violent games

[BackInIraq]

You first said "teach" and then "lead". Teach they do - they teach kids to not waste ammo, to aim for the body center and to keep scanning for new targets quickly. They do teach how to kill more efficiently.

Actually, most frag-fests tend to glorify the headshot and the absolute wasting of ammo. Part of why I don't like them. They do teach scanning for targets, however. Now actual light-gun type games can teach a bit of pistol marksmanship...I'm still convinced I learned everything I needed to know about firing a pistol from Time Crisis. I used to play gun games in the arcade every now and again, and having never fired any firearm in my life, I hit 20 out of 20 targets my first time shooting a pistol in the army. Went on to shoot best in my company in basic as well. But if you're doing your aiming with a mouse or controller, I can't imagine you're really getting all that much from it.

But, even assuming a game can teach a kid how to kill more efficiently, what society should really be looking into is what is making them *want* to, dontcha think? Side note: For those thinking that I would have been firing a rifle rather than a pistol in basic training, I was in the one enlisted specialty (Armor Crewman) that I know of that qualifies on M9 pistol rather than M16 rifle (some others do both). I was in the army for 3 years before I ever fired a real bullet from a rifle. And I sucked at it.

Which brings up an additional point...if we want to ban video games because they can make kids more effective killers, shouldn't underage hunting go with it? That teaches kids quite literally how to kill, and vastly improves their marskmanship as well.

Re:violent games

[bigbigbison]

First of all, either you are Jack Thompson or you are just cutting and pasting from his web site (5th paragraph).

Secondly, I don't know the specifics of the other studies, but the study done at IU Medical was 1) funded in part by The Center for Successful Parenting which already beleives that media can lead to violent actions and is simply looking for support for their beliefs which makes the findings suspect in my opinion.

2) according to the press release for the IU study says that the kids didn't even PLAY videogames but:

watched a car racing video game that had excitement without violent content and a James Bond video game that had excitement and moderately violent content. While watching the video games, the youths were scanned with fMRI to determine changes in brain activity. The youths were not actually playing the video game because of the limitations imposed by the MRI equipment, but they did have the feeling of participation since they pushed a response button each time they thought the video character should take action.

I don't know, but that makes it sound like WATCHING violence is problematic, not playing violent games.

Just because a study is published doesn't mean that it is unbiased or that the popular media won't distort the findings into something much more sensational.

Re:violent games

[kingj02]

I think that it makes children less sensitive towards violence, in video games.

I don't know about that. I've spent countless hours playing GTA, zooming in with the sniper rifle and shooting heads off, but on a TV show like CSI, if they have a scene with a dead body, I have to turn away or I'd probably throw up. If a game was too realistic, I wouldn't be able to play it. I imagine most people are the same.

Re:violent games

[wawannem]

I did find it hard to believe, so I did a little searching... Wouldn't you know it, the Surgeon General did a study:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolenc e/youvioreport.htm
But, what does he know, so I figured the Washington State Dep't of Health may know better: http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/Videoresearch.doc
Again, they're probably just wrong, so I checked the Journal of American Medicine, and wouldn't you know it... A researcher from John Hopkins University had this to say:

Consensus is lacking on whether video games with violent content fuel aggressive behavior in children and adolescents... If video games do increase violent tendencies outside the laboratory, the explosion of gaming over the past decade-from $3.2 billion in sales in 1995 to $7 billion in 2003, according to industry figures-would suggest a parallel trend in youth violence. Instead, youth violence has been decreasing.

I'm admittedly being a dick, but one thing people need to realize is that violence and violent behavior can't be easily measured. The statistical analysis of youth violence doesn't show any correlation with video games and suggests that attacking violent video games will likely yield little/no results in slowing down youth violent behavior.

Re:violent games

[tgibbs]

I've read a number of these studies, and they are pretty much worthless. Either they fail to control for overall arousal with an equally exciting control stimulus, confirmed by heart rate measurements, or they call things like "hitting and kicking" violence.

When kids hit and kick, it is aggression, but it is not serious violence. Kids know that they aren't strong enough to cause serious harm to one another by hitting or kicking, so they have few inhibitions about fighting than adults. That doesn't mean that they aren't capable of serious violence, though, especially if they use a weapon like a knife or a rock. I'd like to see one of these studies that excluded all of the rough play nonsense, and only counted incidents serious enough to require admission of the victim to a hospital.

The bottom line is that as games have gotten increasingly popular, and more realistic and violent, the incidence of youth violence has decreased not increased. So either these studies are wrong (which seems likely, considering the incompetent methodology and the obvious bias of many of the researchers), or the effect is so small that it is insignificant next to other cultural and social influences.

Re:violent games

[TyfStar]

Heres the big problem I have with equating violent video games with violent acts:

when I was a kid, after playing video games I did not instantly want to eat mushrooms & jump on turtles. I did not go around shooting jumping things with a sword that shoots out silver swords when I was full health.

However, I _HAVE_ walked out of a store at dusk and thought "oh, I need to cast the spell to make myself seeat night". And, I am a little afraid of dragons that look like ducks. Okay, a lot.

It does depend on the person and the time in their life, I think. If Jumpstart video games are good for my daughter, then the shooting games & WoW _MUST_ be teaching her _SOMETHING_.

In all honesty, I believe this is a societal phase. The same people that yelled "Noo! we can't show violence on TV to kids! It's bad for them! Ditto with sex!" are yelling now. Someone will always want the world to think of the children. One day a president or governer will stand up and say "WE CANNOT ALL THINK OF THE CHILDREN! IT IS TIME TO THINK OF THE PARENTS, AND HOW TO TEACH THEM TO THINK OF THEIR OWN DAMN CHILDREN!!"

Re:violent games

[Suddenly_Dead]

[I]Video games are literally "murder simulators" teaching our kids how to kill.[/I]

When I was a young one, I played video games the likes of Starsiege: Tribes (which still rules). That was a late 1998 game, which I probably started playing in/around 1999, and I am currently 17. Before that, I played some Quake and Doom II.

These are all "violent" video games, and I played others to a lesser degree back then. The only 99% nonviolent games I play today are probably Sim City 4, and Flightsim 2004.

I am curious. Did these video games teach me to strap jetpacks onto my back and shoot exploding discs at people (Tribes)? Or perhaps I've been taught to shoot fireballs, nails, and BFGs at creepy, raspy voiced alien things? Ehh, I'm not seeing it. And I've always gotten pretty good marks for someone whose brain functions have been damaged, they probably even improved around the time I started playing Tribes.

I didn't do much in the way of violent games at the younger ages (eh, 8 maybe?). The most violent things I was allowed to watch on TV for the longest time were bugs bunny cartoons and some cheesy kiddy anime and whatnot. Perhaps that helped offset the games, perhaps not. However, I must say that I am not the type of person to ever go to fighting to resolve a conflict. "Peace, not war", etc.

Re:violent games

[3nuff]

Which brings up an additional point...if we want to ban video games because they can make kids more effective killers, shouldn't underage hunting go with it?

I would contend that real life hunting and video game killings are not the same. In a real life hunt the child can see the true consquences of using a gun to kill another being, not some digial representation of it. In my estimation there's nothing like the real deal to make an impression on a child (or an adult.)

The problem with video gaming is that it provides a disconnect from the actions taken by the player (unless you count a vibrating controller as punishment.) There's no carcass to clean (or bury), no blood to wash off your shoes. Play enough games (at the right age) and soon you think that this is how it works in real life.

I'm not advocating abstention from games or hunting, moderation is key as with most things in life.

New Study, More Time

[moofdaddy]

As time goes by the studies concerning video games and violence will get better and better. We are finally reaching a point where video games with real detail have been around long enough that major studies can be done on them. Studies that have been done in the past are amazingly accurate because the sample size and length of the study can only be so long.

A new study was released yesterday by Tulane Medical which tracked video game users over a 8 year period testing how much the video games they play affect their tendency toward violence. The study found that among those who played games 8% went on to have some form of violence conviction while only 6% of the non-gamers did.

The head of the project though did say that this is something that need a lot more data before any major conclusions can be drawn.

Re:New Study, More Time

[BWJones]

There is a reason that the armed services are looking at video games to desensitize soldiers to pulling the trigger on a human being. As far back as the 1930's, the armed forces have known there is an innate reluctance to pulling the trigger on another human being (in most cases), and this resistance has to be overcome by training. Therefore, whereas the first targets were simply targets, modern targets have become more and more realistic, culminating today in video games that are more immersive. When I did the USMC ROTC bootcamp a dozen years ago or so, we had serious serious training to react, react, REACT! when confronted with an enemy target. This training is deeply ingrained so that at what is called "the moment of truth", you will not hesitate.

There likely is a small but significant correlation between video games and increased violence, but this will likely not be any greater than if they properly controlled for other means of aggressive expression, like playing football or rugby or simply getting into fights. Properly controlled studies will also have to control for drug and alcohol abuse.

Re:New Study, More Time

[BWJones]

This is a flawed analogy.

How so? Because you seem to contradict yourself in the next sentence.

The training you went through was designed to not only desensitize you to the idea of killing another human being but also to instill a second-nature reaction so you could effectively defend yourself.

Look. The idea of a soldier, particularly a Marine, is to kill if necessary. As it was explained to me, ...... If you are threatened, you WILL destroy your opponent. Otherwise you will lose and the first rule of warfare is not to lose. Furthermore, if ordered into a combat situation, you will pull the trigger when necessary and in an offensive situation (as opposed to a police action), there is no waiting to be threatened. Malice is not necessarily involved, as it is your job. It is what you do and if you are in a command situation, you will be also be able to order your troops to do the same.

Your training did not (I'm assuming) cause you to go on a killing spree. Videogames do contribute to a desensitization, but only when the "moment of truth" arrives. Getting to that moment is an entirely different thing.

You are talking about two completely different things. There is an innate reluctance to bring harm to another human being in most folks. In some folks who have sociopathic tendencies, this inhibition is already missing. They are pre-wired to be disinhibited to commit violence. The question is: Do video games have any influence on somebody who otherwise would not commit a violent act to become disinhibited and lower the threshold for violence.

Re:New Study, More Time

[Anonymous Coward]

In some respects (Anthropological) that would be a good idea. In others (as a basis for social policy) that would be bad. They're not looking at the effect of a specific kind violence on homosapians per se, but rather the effect of that in a specific society. One of the things Japan has going for it is an extremely homogenious culture that places a premium value on conformity. Where America is a mush of everything with a premium being placed on individuality, personal excellence, and an ability to game the system. One might quite reasonably assume the effect of violent media in such different contexts would be very different.

In fact, from a social policy stand point that doesn't even matter. The place where they want to implement social policy just isn't over there.

But already, you've got the specters of confirmation and selection bias, since people are looking for data as a place from which to make a decision to for drastic future change. With integrity being dead, the study being extremely difficult to do accurately and with precision, and money being short for everyone who's not writing proposals for homeland security, don't expect to be satisfied anytime soon.

They can debate this to death...

[Capt'n Hector]

But not much can be done about it. Games make money. Lots of money. When there's that kind of power behind an industry, the most critics can do is get warning labels on the boxes.

English

[hunterx11]

FTA:

Does age or sex play a factor in violent, aggressive behavior?

Sure, the sex and violence centers of the brain overlay one another, which is why the increasing mix of sex and violence is troubling. Armies have been known to go on rape rampages after battles because the violence stimulates sexual aggression. How lovely that GTA weds sex and violence in the same game. We are training a generation of teens to combine sex with violence, just what America needs.

Does this man not understand that in the English language, "sex" can refer to gender? What does he write on forms that ask his sex? "Yes, please?" Probably, "Goodness, no!" actually.

By the way, I'd like to know where these "sex and violence centers of the brain" are. Maybe we could just lobotomize everyone and cure all our ills.

mister obvious here

[Anonymous Coward]

so if games do all that.

what does real world war coverage do to people?

those are REAL people dying. not just pixels on a screen.

We better ban war too. its violent.

Re:There was no violence before video games...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Now that's an unreasonable statement that oversimplifies reality. I am willing to accept that there may be a correlation, but proving causality is going to be tougher. I think games could be a bad influence, but humans are a far greater influence.

Personally, I want to see these studies that show there is or isn't a link between game violence and real violence. I've never heard of such a study either way.

Perhaps we need MORE violent video games?

[isotope23]

Take a look :

Statistics

from the link :

"Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. "

"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."

"Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994. Rates for males and females have been getting closer in recent years."

The last blurb I find particularly interesting.I am willing to bet that most girls DO NOT play violent video games, whereas most males probably do. Perhaps the games are allowing people to work out their aggression in other ways?

This chart is also interesting. Remember DOOM came out in 1993, at almost the peak of the chart.

Let's Blame "The Three Stooges"...

[__aaclcg7560]

When I was a kid, watching re-runs of "The Three Stooges", "Batman" and "Tom & Jerry" was considered to be "too violent" for children to watch since they could act out certain behaviors on the playground. Which did happen but my Dad told me that was happening long before TV ever came out.

The only violence I had as a teenager was when someone bashed my head into a sign and fought back. As an adult I have gotten a few fist fights because someone tried to intimidate me with the threat of violence and they were surprised when I fought back in response.

Should I blame the TV shows that I watched, or the country music and talk shows I was forced to listened to as my dad's truck only got two radio stations, in my youth. The Atari 2600 video game console and video arcades in my teenage years? Or should I blame Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 that I play as an adult?

I think the blame still lies with the parents for the home environment they build for the children. My parents were abusive towards each other and alcohol played a big part. My older brother became a drug addict for most of his life. I ended up rejecting all that to become a Christian and living a clean life.

Seems like the responsibility of raising children is everyone's except the parents these days.

Re:There was no violence before video games...

[JohnnyCannuk]

Actuallty, since the advent of video games, the rate of violent crime, including murder, has actually declined in the US and Canada - steadily every year for 20 years, in all demographics including youth crime. I beleive there have been a few minor blib years but the trend is obvious.

Funny how the anti-violent-game folks fail to bring up that particular statistic...

This can't be wished away.

[cfalcon]

There really *are* more and more studies that show this statistical correlation. Studies where the control group plays a nonviolent game and the experimental group plays a violent one... and then, afterwards, are the various experiments. One involves the subjects leaving the way they came, and seeing a person in pain. The response times to help the person vary dramatically between these otherwise peer groups.

There's not much question that seeing violent images desensitises you to violent images anymore (whether these are lasting is up for debate).

One reason why this isn't taken seriously is because they've been decrying video games since Pac-Man- and earlier studies, IIRC, didn't show much correlation.

The important thing to get out of this is not a bunch of freedom-trashing legislation though: a movie about WWII would cause the same kind of desensitisation. Many things would. Scientists haven't tested for it (and lacking video, the effect wouldn't be as strong probably), but don't you think they could link antisocial / violent behavior to the "wrong" kind of books? Using this logic, why stop at video games?

What we are seeing isn't scientists making interesting notes about how sights, sounds, and thoughts condition us to accept more things *like* those- we're seeing a pack of lawyers circling like sharks to try to attack a group of newly "liable" "perpetrators"- and if they beath the hell out of the first amendment doing so, oh well.

Like all good things done to destroy your rights, this one will be "for the good of the children".

If you back this, just remember it in a few years when they prove the same thing about adults (easy, since conditioning works just as well for both), living with a "more violent than average family" (which will be half of families), or... well... political disagreement.

You either have free speech or you don't. Protecting free speech doesn't mean being able to say that purple is my favorite color: it means allowing speech that everyone disagrees with and may, in fact, be harmful.

If not the vids, what is it?

[fuzzy12345]

Whenever violence in games comes up here, there's a chorus of people who say that there's no causality between violence in videogames and violence in real life.

Similarly, gun nuts say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and fans of violent movies deny their role.

Are Americans HAPPY with the level of violence in their society, or perhaps accepting of it because it is a necessary trade-off for some other desirable aspect of their culture? Because it's undeniable that compared to other civilized first world countries, the level of violence in America is very high. Yet every interest group insists that their pet recreation has nothing to do with it. If videogames don't contribute to violent behaviour, what IS causing America's disproportionately high levels of violence?

True. But don't punish me for it!

[Anthony Boyd]

The heads of six major health care organizations testified before Congress that there are hundreds of studies that prove the link.

True. Anyone who has read "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" knows all about suggestability and the Werther's effect. The basic concept -- which works for TV, games, books, anything -- is that the more closely someone can relate to what they see, the more likely they are to mimick that behavior. So a little yellow pac man eating ghosts isn't going to influence anyone to eat ghosts, but a bunch of bunch of Burger King ads featuring black males in their 20s and 30s suddenly makes their sales demographic skew toward black males in their 20s and 30s.

This is why when my daughter sees grandparents in a commercial advertising a drug, she doesn't care. But when she sees an ad featuring 3 9-year-old girls fawning over their cool Bratz journal, she suddenly wants one. Her Amazon wish list is almost a perfect mirror of every ad that has appeared on Nickelodeon in the past 6 months. That's not by mistake. When someone targets your demographic, you can be influenced.

Of course, some people are immune to this stuff. Any free-thinking person who is remotely self-aware can sense when their buttons are getting pressed. But it gets harder to sense manipulation when it's not deliberate. I think games are art. As such, they often do nothing more than hold a mirror up to society, possibly to provide a jarring wake-up call. Or possibly just to be jarring. :) But in any case, as they become hyper-realistic, we get pulled in and influenced. For example, I love Vampire: Bloodlines. My wife and kids have called me a vampire for years -- I love the movies, I love being awake at night and sleeping at day, I think the culture is sexy. When I'm in playing that game, nothing breaks the illusion that I'm in that game world. It feels comfortable. The problem? It completely objectifies women, something I do not get in my real-world life. But there, in the game, it's quite nice. How much carries over into my real-life thinking? Enough that I have to check myself. I don't think the game developers intended for that to happen, it just did.

You can take a jab at me and say that I must have a weak mind if I let that affect me. But I don't mind, it IS in fact a defect that I can be so suggestable. And that's the point. These studies are not about strong-willed Slashdotters who have their shit together. These studies are of the huge number of weak-minded people who have no idea that they are internalizing what they see. Those people are a problem, and there are a lot of them.

My wife is a shrink. About half of her clients' problems are simply that they have surrounded themselves with negative influences for so long that they're stewing in it, and can't see what it's doing. For the other half of her clients, she uses these techniques on THEM. In other words, if a 30-something mom is scared of wide open spaces, my wife will show the her videos of 30-something women enjoying the outdoors. For many people, this stuff seeps into the psyche and changes thinking.

In the end, the point I would make is twofold. First, it is nice to see some Slashdotters understanding this finally. Three years ago when this stuff would come up here, it was always 100% rejected as baloney. Second, while our environment influences us, and what we fill our minds with influences us, it is only the extremely violence-prone who are so susceptible to this that they cross a line. So I do not want to be penalized for their mistakes. I don't know how you work that out, but there must be a way. For example, instead of banning something, make it available only to adults.

Re:Age is the key

[glhturbo]

That violent games can translate to aggression in young boys I think is fairly easy to illustrate

I dunno ... I think young boys are naturally aggressive. I'm not sure my two sons would be any less aggressive if we lived out on a farm in the 1800's...

We don't allow 12 year olds to see rated R movies (okay, we've all snuck into a movie that aside...). We don't allow them to view porn. We shouldn't allow them to buy violent video games

IF "we" means "my wife and I", fine ... If "we" means "Congress", NO WAY! As far as I am concerned my duty as a parent is to make the decisions for my sons that they cannot make. Nobody else has that right (well, except my wife :-) ). Have you watched "American Chopper"? They bleep the bad words, but there's no mistaking what they are. This would definitely be "R" rated if it were an unbleeped movie. But I let my 9-year old watch it. Why? Because he's not the type to go running around swearing, because he knows it's not OK. My 5-year old, however, has some trouble with that :-), so he doesn't watch ... MY kids, MY decision ... And I am willing to admit failures when they occur, fix them, and move on ... It's called life ...

Re:Much Worse then TV and Movies

[knight37]

When I watch a movie it is a fairly passive activety. I sit back, enjoy the flick without much involement. When I play a game though, such as grand theft auto or the like, that is a very active thing. I look for pedestrians to run over, I look for police to beat up. Now, I don't think that this nesassarly translates into violence in real life but it is definetly worse then what you see in tv and movies. So what about those actors in Hollywood, are they all wacko too? I mean, they pretend to kill people in violent movies, that must mean they are violent.

The Violent Id.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are always going to have people who cannot distinguish between make believe and reality. We should commit these people, not punish the sane people."

So are people arguing that all the violent behavior in the world is because of the inability to tell make believe from reality?

Second, mechanism of violence. How do people think children learn about violence, and is it a process that's peculiar to one particular activity?

Or maybe we're just naturally violent, in which case nothing external is to blame.

EVERYTHING influences child behavior!

[jay-be-em]

I simply can't believe that we are still having the debate of whether or not video games influence child behavior. If a child plays video games for 2+ hours a day OF COURSE it influences their behavior. Children are like sponges; they soak up whatever they experience; our brains are designed to do this as we are growing up.

The real question is to what lengths should we go to shield children from things which would influence their behavior negatively. Personally I have no problem with an enforced ratings system.

The two counterarguments to this are:

a) Kids will burn copies anyway and play it.
Response: Yes, some, but I think the /. crowd vastly overestimates the number of gaming minors who have the technical savy to find the image, butn it and mod their playstation or whatever console to play it. 25% at most. So the law would not be completely effective, but what law is?

b) This should be the job of the parent.
Response: Perhaps, but the reality is we aren't living in a world where there is a parent watching their child 24/7. Many more families these days either have only one working parent or two parents working fulltime. This just isn't realistic to demand that parents monitor their kids activities 24/7 (not to mention how terrible of a parenting method that would be). Besides, mandatory ratings actually encourage the parent to get involved; if the child wants a game rated M or whatever he/she can attempt to convince the parent he/she is mature enough to handle it. The choice now rests on the parent.

Re:Hardly insightful.

[crunk]

Think about this, maybe some humans are just violent by nature. Humans have been at war with each other since the beginning of time. This was before video games or violent movies. You could even argue that our past was even more violent than present time.

Your second sentence makes no sense so we'll just ignore it.

Since you are having trouble reading let me break this down for you. Some kids see things in a video game and don't understand that they are just playing a game, and think that they may repeat these actions in real life. Hence, not being able to seperate reality from fantasy. Get it?

Leave the sane ones among us to reflect to some extent on whether it is a good idea to have our children spending hours a week engaging in ever more realistic bloodshed.

But you did hit the nail on the head here. Parents, who are the ones really responsible for raising a child, should monitor thier children's activities. They are responsible for the child's upbringing, and should make good decisions for their child based on that fact.

I just don't like congress getting involved in these types of issues.

From my own personal experiences I have played these types of video games since I was a kid, and even watched violent movies. I turned into a normal adult, and I don't have any violence issues whatsoever. Hey, maybe I'm just the exception. I only speak from my experiences.

Cause and effect

[Arysh]

As others have pointed out, the people trying to ban violent video games clearly don't understand that a correllation does not necessarily mean any kind of cause and effect relationship. Furthermore, even if you assume that such a relationship exists, identifying which is the cause and which is the effect is very difficult if you're just working with statistical information.

Is it really so surprising that violent people have usually played violent video games? That's like saying "The vast majority of people who play games that display females in a sexual manner are young men that go on to have sexual relations with women. Therefore, those games must make most men straight and interested in sex."

Does anyone else see the problem with this logic?

On a more personal note, I usually avoid FPS-style games (I find them way too boring), but found GTA a lot of fun. The few times I've played the game, I went around killing as many pedestrians as possible and taking their stuff... so I suspect that puts me squarely in the category of people that is supposedly made violent by video games. Interestingly enough, even though the games that I have played have probably desensitized me to animated blood and gore, I'm extremely squeamish in real life. I actually switched over from biology to computer science this past January in part to get away from dissection... I just can't handle cutting apart a living (or recently-living) thing, even if that thing is just a crab or worm or something. Hell, I even feel bad flushing an amoeba down the drain because I'm afraid it will suffer.

I also can't stand hurting people. A few years back, I took kendo lessons for a few months and found that despite all the anime/movies/games I'd been exposed to where sword fighting was glorified, the whole idea of running at a guy and hitting him with a big stick really wasn't easy for me. There were other reasons why I quit, but that was part of it.