posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:56 PM
I, for one, believe that video games are not the direct cause of violence. However this comes from the perspective of someone that plays games pretty
often. I have played GTA, but I have never felt any need to go out and kill or harm someone in any way. If you ask any of the people that know me,
they would probably say that I'm not violent or aggressive at all. I have never been in a fight or even an argument in school really and trust me
there are enough people that dislike me that I could get into a fight easily.
This is lead me to believe that video games don't cause violence in people, but rather may act as a trigger. This implies that there has to be
problems already in place before the video game is played. If that is the case, the person probably shouldn't be playing it in the first place.
Looking at it another way, if someone was just angry at someone and had intentions of harming them, a trigger could also be reports of violent acts on
the news. Either source would put the idea of killing into someone's mind. I'm not trying to say that video games aren't violent, because some of
them are. I just feel that video games are being used as an excuse by kids that do irresponsibly commit violent acts so that they can get off easier.
I'm also not one of those people that will try to place the blame on kids' parents, either, because it doesn't fit in all situations. There could
easily be a problem that the parent doesn't know about and therefore cannot address.
If a person doesn't have the capability to differentiate between fantasy and reality, they probably shouldn't be playing video games. However, if a
person who plays video games with that capability is just too irresponsible to make that distinction and they do commit a violent crime, then perhaps
they get what they deserve when they are charged.
In closing, I would like to say that banning violent video games will not solve anything. In the absence of violent games, people will still obtain
triggers for violent acts from different sources, such as the news which I mentioned above. There is also the complications that go along with trying
to ban something described as "violent". There's no easy way to define a violent video game in law, so it would probably be pretty easy for a game
developer to sneak by. Since it's so hard to define a video game in law, I would assume the next logical step by anti-violent video game advocates
would be to set up some sort of approval board for video games. In my opinion, this is a severe infringement against the freedom of speech. Again, in
my opinion, the best way to deal with the issue of violent video games is the way that it's being done: making the ESRB ratings more obvious and
blocking the sale of "M" rated games to those under 17, very similar to the way movies are handled.
[edit on 9-1-2006 by UnknownOrigins]