I can’t wait for my generation to take over the government, I really can’t. That time when I can look about and not see ANY sort of material related to violent video games being bad for kids because A) Most of my generation was raised playing them and B) the rest of them are completely apathetic to, well, everything. What a wonderful time…

If there’s one thing that consistently pisses me off, it’s the blame put on game companies like Rockstar (GTA series) or Running With Scissors (Postal series) for violence by state representative and/or senators who are obviously far, far out of touch with pop culture.

Not only are some of them out of touch, they’re completely insane. The following is a bill proposed by Washington State representatives in February. Even though this wasn’t passed, it’s a bit scary that people in their position would even have this line of thought. However, you should note that it’s a good thing something five months old is the most current attack on violent video games (that I can find at least) because five years ago this sort of shit was constant. Anyways, without further ado, House Bill 2178:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 The legislature finds that:
(1) The graphic depictions of violence against others in video and computer games are becoming more disturbingly realistic, especially with the sophisticated advancements in technology;
(2) Some video and computer games give the player points or otherwise reward or encourage the player to assault, rape, torture, and kill other characters;

Since “characters” in a video game can be just about anything… Yes, damn Mario and Pacman for their fancy rewards when you kill goombas and ghosts, damn Halo for letting you destroy aliens, and damn Tom Clancy’s line of games that teach you to kill terrorists! Damn them all! That sort of destruction of life will no doubt have an UNSPEAKABLE IMPACT on the player! Nooooo!

On another note, no retail game has ever let you participate in raping anyone. None. But exaggeration is so much fun, you can hardly expect state representatives or other people in power to NOT do it!

(3) Some of these games contain graphics of torture, sexual assault, and killing of women, persons of color, and law enforcement officers;

Oh, so it wouldn’t be as bad if we were just killing white, male civilians? Great! For a minute there, I was thinking they had this crazy notion that killing anyone is equally bad! Silly me: Equality among humanity is only applicable to “good” things.

(4) These games choreograph violence in a stylized and romanticized way that encourages children and adolescents to associate violence and killing with pleasure, entertainment, feelings of achievement, and personal empowerment;

Of course associating killing with achievement is completely illogical and something only those nasty shoot ‘em up games would do. Pft, I mean, you don’t see our military citing death tolls in a battle or anything of that sort. And if they did, I’m sure somebody would try passing a law saying they shouldn’t because “killing is not an achievement! Not ever ever!.” Er, wait a sec…

Why would any child think it’s pleasurable to kill in real life just because it is in a game? Oh oh, I know! Because of those blasted parent-things that aren’t around to teach them right from wrong…

(5) Studies show a correlation between exposure to violent video and computer games and hostile behavior. Children and adolescents who spend hours playing these video games can become desensitized to violence against others, and such games can be a factor in creating conditions that lead to actual violence;

That’s right folks, they “can” be factor! Hey, why not have laws discouraging ANYONE from creating something with the potential to lead to violence in some way? I mean, just look at what else we could get rid of:

- All forms of mass media. Look at how many shootings there were AFTER Columbine; major channels like Fox & CNN reported it was possible, and viola! More people tried it.
- Sports. Two words: Soccer riots.
- The weather. Ever been so pissed off at the weather you could strangle a puppy?
- God. Jiiiiihad!
- Satan. Sacrificial goats anyone?
- Government. People don’t agree with it, they get all testy, and start deadly riots. We just can’t have that.
- Books. Someone might read Ethan Frome and hurt a tree.
- The Internet. Be it the sudden urge to genocide all 12-14 year olds from reading various forums littered with them, or the fact that you can build a bomb based on plans you found made by a 16 year old with shoddy HTML skills who thinks he’s an anarchist by living in his parent’s basement and smoking pot, the interweb is just plain bad news.

Wow, you know, the world sure would be a safer place without those. Sterile and unenjoyable, but safer nonetheless.

(6) Throughout the country, law enforcement officers report that offenders committing violent crimes admit that they are intentionally copying the types of violent acts they play out in video or computer games. There have been accounts reported in the media in which violent offenders boast of the similarity between their crimes and the games; and

People kill because of God too, but we can’t sue religious organizations when a solider is killed in the name of Allah, or a homosexual is murdered because the killer believes it’s against God’s will, now can we? There’s no more an influence on them by religion to commit their acts than there is on children perpetrating violence because “they saw it in a game and thought it was real neat”.

It’s a distinct LACK of intelligence on both parts. Why would somebody kill in the name of God? Because nobody convinced them it wasn’t ok. Why would somebody kill because a game glorified it? The exact same reason. The difference is that the latter is usually children, and SOMEBODY has plenty of opportunity to teach them right from wrong…

(7) Manufacturers and retailers of these games are aware of the inappropriateness of violent video and computer games for children. Manufacturers and retailers are also aware of the studies and reports regarding the effects of these violent video and computer games on adolescents.

Yes, manufacturers (manufacturers is a synonym for developers in their alternate reality, apparently) are aware of it! You think they stick that “M” on the game box just for shits and giggles?

And I’ll admit, the ESRB needs to get on the ball a little more. When you have a game like No One Lives Forever rated the same as Grand Theft Auto, something’s wrong. Nonetheless, these are labels that ARE visible and parents are fully capable of reading them. Better yet, they can go download a demo themselves before letting their kid buy it and decide whether or not it’s appropriate. But that requires time and effort I guess, and who really has that when it comes to their own children?

The legislature declares that manufacturers and retailers of these games should do their part in taking responsibility when individuals copy in real life the violence they learn from these violent video and computer games. Therefore, the legislature intends to create a private cause of action against manufacturers and retailers of violent video and computer games.
….
A person may maintain an action for personal injury or wrongful death against a manufacturer or retailer of violent video or computer games if the manufacturer or retailer has distributed, sold, or rented a violent video or computer game to a person under the age of seventeen and the game was a factor in creating conditions that assisted or encouraged the person to cause injury or death to another person.

I’d be hypocritical if I said kids under 17 should be completely kept away from games with a mature rating since I started playing violent games like Kingpin and Solider of Fortune when I was around 12 or 13 years old (not that my parents were really aware of it, but that’s beside the point since they were making every effort to instill some morality in me). However, parents should be able to make good judgment calls on what their kids are allowed to play. For example, letting your six year old play GTA 3 is ridiculous because they’re not old enough to separate fantasy from reality and they wouldn’t be able to grasp the fact that what they’re doing is wrong. But by the time that child has reached adolescence, he should have the right idea if you’re doing your job as a parent.

Well that’s House Bill 2178 for you. And since I feel like attacking people even less educated about gaming, let’s go to DrSears.com, a “parental help” site for the spineless:

According to Colonel Grossman, the Marine Corp uses modified versions of grossly violent video games (like the ones that allegedly motivated the Columbine carnage) to teach recruits how to kill. These are used to develop the “will to kill” by repeatedly rehearsing the act until it feels natural.

Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman[...]points out that willingness to kill another person is not a natural behavior, but one that has to be taught by repeated desensitization and exposure to violence.

“Oh, and did I mention the Marine Corp spends most of its time NOT using computer programs to do that? Ha, silly me. My memory must be going…”

For the uninitiated, Lt. Col. Grossman is a former Marine who wrote a book about how games are teaching kids to kill. I have a lot of respect for the Marine Corp, but this man is more than bit misguided. Thankfully, he went away (his book came out in 1999… Haven’t heard from him in the last half-decade).

When did we collectively decide desensitization to violence was bad? It means you no longer respond to it, it does NOT mean you are more willing to perpetrate it. It may be easier for you to do so, but that has nothing to do with willingness. The WILLINGNESS to commit violent acts stems from your level of aggression.

Let’s look at me for an example: As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been playing violent games since a very early age. They didn’t completely desensitize me, but they did play a part. The real factors in my desensitization were graphic videos and photography (Ogrish, etc), mainly because when you look at those you think, “Wow, that’s what it actually looks like”. And after watching those and developing a fascination with them, violence doesn’t really bother me anymore.

Here’s the great part: I’ve never been in a fight, I’ve never seriously threatened to kill anyone, nor have I ever had any intention of doing so. Not once. So you see, despite my desensitization to violence, I am by no means willing to go on a shooting spree or any sort of rampage. I’m like a living contradiction to Lt. Grossman, sweet!

It’s physiologically disturbing. The “hype hormones” that are aroused by violent video games cause children to suffer serious consequences, such as nightmares, stomachaches, headaches, anorexia, and fatigue.

The only dreams I’ve ever had involving games were great. They’re entirely too geeky to go into here, but they were great. And I’d like somebody to show me any semblance of proof that games can induce anorexia, because I’d bet my life there isn’t any.

Some studies have even related seizure activity to violent screen time. Violent video games have been found to stress the cardiovascular system, such as increasing blood pressure and rapid breathing characteristic of a physiologic stress response. One study even reported an increase in the stress hormone adrenaline during video playing.

Oh no, they give you an adrenaline rush! Oh… Oh god! What’re we gonna do?! Send the kids outside! WAIT, they might start playing sports and get the same effects! We’re doooomed!

In truth, I could go on for ages about why violent games don’t cause violent children, but I think the above should suffice. My main point is that at THE MOST games are a catalyst for violence. If a kid copies a game and kills someone in real life, they were already mentally unstable because games can’t physically make you do anything. Whose fault is it that they’re fucked up in the first place: The developers? They just make the game, they don’t buy it and install it for anyone. The kid? They’re still under the control (or should be until they’re 18) of their parents. Or the parents? During the formative years of a child’s life they’re responsible for the child’s actions. They teach them what’s right, what’s wrong, and why they shouldn’t cross that line.

The right answer is the only logical one. But logic is almost non-existent in today’s world.