Violence in video games.

[arnisador]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0507040201jul05,1,4668835.story

Scapegoating and finger-pointing are hardly the sole property of America in the debate over violence and its relationship to video games. Japan's vid industry is considering a self-imposed regulation program to limit the sale of mature-themed games to minors after the Japanese media linked a 15-year-old's slaying of his parents to his exposure to "Grand Theft Auto III." Most major players are on board, including Sony and Nintendo. The move is seen as a way to head off potential regulation from the Japanese government, which could be far more restrictive.

 

[Marginal]

Grossman doesn't really fit the bill as an objective source. (By that, I mean that the APA -an objective source- doesn't agree with him.)

 

[sgtmac_46]

And I would like to see them and how they determined video games as a causal factor.

Even showing a connection between them does not show video games causes an increase in violence. Maybe its the attitudes that cause an increase in video game violence? With Guns everywhere and the news telling everyone how scary things are, maybe that is more related and the connection to video games is just coincidental?

Until some good studies are done there is nothing to support the argument that video games make people violent, and any attempt to do so has come up short.

Video games are just an easy scape goat, but there are far bigger problems with society then video games...

Besides every generation for 1000's of years has been taught violence through play, been taught there are certain groups that it is "ok" to kill. Jews, Blacks, Communists, Barbarians, French, British, Nazi's, Japanese, North Koreans, etc. The list goes on, all people that it has been taught as "ok" to kill. Nothing has really changed...

So you're suggesting that the news has a link to violence, but not other violent media? Seems like you might be cherry picking here. As for studies, see my next post. It should give you plenty of APA material to try and discount in the name of maintain access to a product.

I'm glad you mentioned nazis and the jews. Just look at how useful propaganda was to indoctrinate hundreds of thousands of people to engage in genocide against jewish populations during WWII. That was mostly speeches on TV, written propaganda and a few posters. We've got a whole multi-media world going on now. We can expose children to multiple sensory inputs in the name of violence enabling. Funny thing is, though, at least the Nazis tried to direct the outcome. We're just putting it out there and not even wondering what will happen.

I don't think the problem is the games themeselves, or adults playing them.

The problem is irresponsible adults letting thier 12yo kid play a game that has a warning lable saying that it has mature content and is not inteneded for anyone under 17 (of 18, whatever is actually is, I'm not sure)


The big problem is the vast majority of the people in charge, (those of about 40 and older) who neer played video games and still fail to realize that video games are not all made for kids.

These are the same people that see games like Grand Theft Auto and go crazy because of what the games are "doing to our children". Well, sorry buddy, but that game was never meant to be played by little kids.

Just like your 12 yo was never meant to watch Natural Born Killers or Basic Instinct.

Nobody gets mad when 200 people are killed over the course of an action movie, but they go nuts when they see a video game with comparable violence.

Horrible.

So you're saying that software companies do not purposely target pre-18 year olds for their product? Much in the same vein that cigarette companies do not purposely market to young teens? lol.

Just as cigarette companies would go out of business in less than a generation without the below 18 customer, likewise the pre-18 market for games like Grand Theft Auto is far too significant for software companies to lose.

When i'm talking about media violence and it's effect, i'm not just referring to video games. Natural Born Killers and violent rap music are prime examples of not only extreme violence enabling products, but more importantly, violence devoid of any moral context or consequences. Extreme violence enabling is bad enough. Extreme amoral violence is infinitely worse.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Grossman doesn't really fit the bill as an objective source. (By that, I mean that the APA -an objective source- doesn't agree with him.)

I'm glad you mentioned the APA. Since you acknowledge your acceptance of the APA (and I would assume the AMA as well) as an objective source, you might want to look at these.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/ab02.pdf
http://www.apa.org/releases/violentsongs.html
http://www.psych.org/public_info/media_violence.cfm
http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-10-06/media.html
http://www.actagainstviolence.com/specialtopics/mediaviolence.html
http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-03/apa-cet030303.php
http://www.medpagetoday.com/tb/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/526
http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2001/janreleases/tvaggress.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13797.html
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=4754
http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-11-03/pres11a.html

There's pleny more research where that came from.

Apparently the APA and the AMA doesn't agree with your characterization of their stand on the issue, and it has been the general concensus of it's members since the late 1970's that a causal link exists. If you believe them a reliable source, then you have lost this argument. The only other choice is to backtrack and attack the APA and AMA and their dozens upon dozens of cited studies supporting a direct causal link between media violence exposure to children and subsequent increases in real world aggression.

The link is well established. The defense of media violence is seeming very reminiscent of the willful ignorance of cigarette smokers to the negative effect of cigarette smoking. I do not propose to ban violent video games from adult users. I would like to see a little more honest discussion on it's effect on children, however.

You can, if you desire, find many sources that attempt to attack the idea that media violence has any correlation to real world violence. Much of it is based no more on an attempt to obfuscate the point. The best one i've read is the argument that "human behavior is too complex to make a conclusive argument that real world violence is effected by media violence". Well, that's a non-argument if I ever heard one. It's an attempt to by-pass the whole discussion in attempt to avoid having to deal with the mountain of evidence by simply dismissing it.

Study after study shows a direct link. The question is, what do we do about it? Do I suggest banning violent video games? No, I do not. I do, however, suggest that we as a society have an obligation to determine a reasonable limit on that type of material. Just as most reasonable people believe that child pornography should be illegal (though a few crackpots will attack that idea as well), we must decide, as a society, where the limit is on certain types of media.

Moreover, we have an obligation to determine what level of exposure is suitable to young children. What an adult can view without long term ill effects is no indication what will effect a child or teenager. The standard for what is acceptable for a pre-adult should be far different than that of adult members of society.

If a 28 year old man wants to play Grand Theft Auto in his own home, I don't see that as a problem. However, what should society say about someone who exposes a 10 year old to that material? Would we be upset? What if that 10 year was exposed to pornographic material, should we as a society set a limit on that?

The answers to these questions need to be more significant than simply dismissing the whole concept. If we don't care what the effects of violent media is on children, lets just say so and avoid the whole discussion. If we are apathetic and just want to make sure that we can pick up the next installment of GTA off the store shelves, and that is our only concern, lets be honest about that fact. I for one, however, am interested in a rational discussion about what to do about the obvious link between media violence and real world violence. Doing nothing is a choice, but we have to understand the potential consequences of that choice.

 

[Yari]

I just read to two first links, and as I agree to not exspose material that children can't handle, I get the feeling they are placing the blame on the media, but pointing in a direction I feel is correct.

If you turn the logic around and say that parents that take responsability for their children and their outlook on life, this gives us the reason for children getting viliont over to much media onslaught is not the media but missing serious parent connection.

/Yari

 

[sgtmac_46]

I just read to two first links, and as I agree to not exspose material that children can't handle, I get the feeling they are placing the blame on the media, but pointing in a direction I feel is correct.

If you turn the logic around and say that parents that take responsability for their children and their outlook on life, this gives us the reason for children getting viliont over to much media onslaught is not the media but missing serious parent connection.

/Yari

Of course it's really no different than laying the entire blame of underage smoking and drinking on parents, while cigarette and alcohol companies reap HUGE profits by marketing their products in that direction. It's an easy cop-out for money making entities to blame parents while profiting. Not to say that parents don't share part of the blame, but when corperations set out to purposely sell those very children a product like this, they have to bear blame as well (despite the laughable protestations that they are NOT marketing these products to underage consumers).

'Hook 'em young' has been the motto of tobacco, alcohol and media producers for decades. Very few smokers start smoking at or after the legal age of 18, and of those small minority that do, they smoke far less and quit more easily than those who start smoking at the more typical age of 13 or 14 (or even younger). It's 13 and 14 year old's that are the target age for lifetime smokers. Tobacco companies know this, and know that without targeting that group, they will go out of business eventually.

Lousy parenting is part of the equation. That doesn't get corporations off the hook for profiteering off of lousy parenting.

 

[MA-Caver]

Of course it's really no different than laying the entire blame of underage smoking and drinking on parents, while cigarette and alcohol companies reap HUGE profits by marketing their products in that direction. It's an easy cop-out for money making entities to blame parents while profiting. Not to say that parents don't share part of the blame, but when corperations set out to purposely sell those very children a product like this, they have to bear blame as well (despite the laughable protestations that they are NOT marketing these products to underage consumers).

'Hook 'em young' has been the motto of tobacco, alcohol and media producers for decades. Very few smokers start smoking at or after the legal age of 18, and of those small minority that do, they smoke far less and quit more easily than those who start smoking at the more typical age of 13 or 14 (or even younger). It's 13 and 14 year old's that are the target age for lifetime smokers. Tobacco companies know this, and know that without targeting that group, they will go out of business eventually.

Lousy parenting is part of the equation. That doesn't get corporations off the hook for profiteering off of lousy parenting.

:asian:

 

[Yari]

Of course it's really no different than laying the entire blame of underage smoking and drinking on parents, while cigarette and alcohol companies reap HUGE profits by marketing their products in that direction. It's an easy cop-out for money making entities to blame parents while profiting. Not to say that parents don't share part of the blame, but when corperations set out to purposely sell those very children a product like this, they have to bear blame as well (despite the laughable protestations that they are NOT marketing these products to underage consumers).

'Hook 'em young' has been the motto of tobacco, alcohol and media producers for decades. Very few smokers start smoking at or after the legal age of 18, and of those small minority that do, they smoke far less and quit more easily than those who start smoking at the more typical age of 13 or 14 (or even younger). It's 13 and 14 year old's that are the target age for lifetime smokers. Tobacco companies know this, and know that without targeting that group, they will go out of business eventually.

Lousy parenting is part of the equation. That doesn't get corporations off the hook for profiteering off of lousy parenting.

I get your argument for tobacco & alcohol, but I don't buy the "get the users to see violence, and they will consume more later on". Violence has always been a part of humanity. Even part of noraml daily entertainment/education.

The first argument was " does seeing violence on TV/games/movies enhance peoples level of violence."

My answer is "depends on how you relate to it", and that if you just leave your children to grow up without parenting, not matter what they see or experience they will become more violent. It's a theory that children that dont experince skin contact while they are babies, have greater tendacy to grow up with reduced social abilities. Even been speculated that this could a a major cause of pyscopates or sociopates (sp?).

So as I dont disagree with your argument that companies try and profit as much as they can. I think that it's a bigger resopnsability to be a parent than more people give it credit today.

/Yari

 

[sgtmac_46]

I get your argument for tobacco & alcohol, but I don't buy the "get the users to see violence, and they will consume more later on". Violence has always been a part of humanity. Even part of noraml daily entertainment/education.

The first argument was " does seeing violence on TV/games/movies enhance peoples level of violence."

My answer is "depends on how you relate to it", and that if you just leave your children to grow up without parenting, not matter what they see or experience they will become more violent. It's a theory that children that dont experince skin contact while they are babies, have greater tendacy to grow up with reduced social abilities. Even been speculated that this could a a major cause of pyscopates or sociopates (sp?).

So as I dont disagree with your argument that companies try and profit as much as they can. I think that it's a bigger resopnsability to be a parent than more people give it credit today.

/Yari

Add to that lack of contact violence enabling multi-media influences and you may produce a whole bunch of sociopaths.

At what point should companies be held responsible for profiteering on irresponsible parents, and making a bad situation far far worse for the sake of share-holder profits?

 

[Yari]

Add to that lack of contact violence enabling multi-media influences and you may produce a whole bunch of sociopaths.

At what point should companies be held responsible for profiteering on irresponsible parents, and making a bad situation far far worse for the sake of share-holder profits?

I dont know. But I dont think the answer is as easy as the question put.
How much responsability are people to have over their own lives? And when are you allowed to decied when others can invade your way of life? What defines the correct way to live? Even if we hate violence, who says it's the "correct" way?

/Yari

 

[Marginal]

Apparently the APA and the AMA doesn't agree with your characterization of their stand on the issue, and it has been the general concensus of it's members since the late 1970's that a causal link exists. If you believe them a reliable source, then you have lost this argument.

Yes, because the claim I was making (Grossman is unreliable as an objective source) is exactly the same thing as saying that there's no causal link between violence and violent media imagery.

You nailed that strawman to the floor!

But still, people finding that aggressive thoughts become more likely when listening to aggressive music (something even the researchers admit is a precursor to aggression, and not a causal factor in violence) isn't even close to what Grossman is claiming.

http://www.psych.org/public_info/media_violence.cfm

For example, this offers nothing on the increased link between violence and an interactive meduim. (A presumption that Grossman has been more than happy to assert for years with no supporting evidence.) Nothing in your links suggests that a definite linked to games being worse has been found. They're at the same place they were 5 years ago.

Borenstein told senators, "APA and AACAP are not suggesting that entertainment violence is the sole, or even the most important, factor contributing to youth aggression, antisocial attitudes, and violence. Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors all contribute to these problems. A public dialogue, parental involvement, and clear information about media content through an effective rating system are key to enhancing the health and well-being of America’s children."

That also disagrees with Grossman's constant assertions. Granted, this was a press release, not any kind of a study, but still. I don't see this undermining the actual argument I put fourth.

 

[Karushi]

This is my only thought... people who base there lives on a video game, movie, etc. and act out violence acorrding to such things deserve to live the rest of their lives in a dank cell! It's not the game's fault! It is entertainment and nothing more than entertainment! I play a lot of video games myself but it's not like I'm going to go around GTA style and kill people because I know the consequences (in fact I don't really like GTA). People who play games for the sake of killing are not worth being called gamers but mearly idiots who have deep seeded problem for which they should seek professional help. And parents who don't know about there 9-year-old kids spouting of curse words that would make a sailor blush, are even bigger idiots, much as he said.That was rant-a-licious!

 

[ginshun]

So you're saying that software companies do not purposely target pre-18 year olds for their product? Much in the same vein that cigarette companies do not purposely market to young teens? lol.

Just as cigarette companies would go out of business in less than a generation without the below 18 customer, likewise the pre-18 market for games like Grand Theft Auto is far too significant for software companies to lose.

Actually, no, I don't think that those games specifically target pre-18 year olds. No more so than rated R movies of the same vein do anyway. I will concede that video games inherently appealing to kids and there are plenty of things in games, besides the sex and violence that younger kids would be drawn to. Therein lies the problem; the things outside of the sex and violence are usually what makes a game successful, not the sex and violence themselves. This is evidenced by craptastic flops like State of Emergency, BMX XXX and PLayboy Mansion, full of sex and or violence, but abismal sales numbers. I honestly don't see a boardroom full of suits at Rockstar sitting around brainstorming ways to make the next GTA more appealing to 12 year olds. The inherent problem is that the same things that make video games appealing to 25 year olds, make them appealing to 12 year olds. How do you suggest the software companies go about making games that appeal to the post 18 crowd only? It can't be done.

Last time I checked it is the reatailers and parents who are putting these games in the hands of kids, not the software companies. I am all for government holding retailers responsible for selling games to young kids, what I am not for is government telling game companies what kind of games they can and can't produce.

 

[MA-Caver]

How much responsability are people to have over their own lives? And when are you allowed to decied when others can invade your way of life? What defines the correct way to live? Even if we hate violence, who says it's the "correct" way?
/Yari

People need to assume 100% accountablity/responsibility over their own lives... WHEN they reach the age to accept and carry that burden. Society is the one who usually dictates the age where a person's parent is no longer held accountable for the actions of their offspring. Our society says 18 is "legal (accountable) age or legal adult. For years my father told me that I would not be a man til I was 21... now at 43... I can see that he was right.

A child in their pre-teens can assume responsibility for what they do and it increases as they get older. Having "chores" around the house and making sure they're done and doing homework and so forth helps them to increase their levels of responsibilty and become accustomed to the day to day things that adults do (go to work, etc.). If a mistake is made then the child should be punished to a level that they understand that whatever it was that they did wrong there's the consensquences of their actions in proportions. Of course some parents go way tooo far with this. ... Others not far enough.

What defines the "correct" way? Society defines it. Our society which votes as a democracy says the speed limit is this and you go to jail for doing that and you can/cannot do this/that. Elsewhere it's either a socialist government or dictatorship or whatever type of government the people of that country want that will define the "correct way" to live within that society.
Don't like how it's done then get into politics and change it. Otherwise get with the program. A good yardstick I've discovered, to where a society's values lie is reflected in the programming allowed on (non-cable) television. 40-50 years ago a husband and wife were never seen in the bedroom let alone IN bed and heaven forbid in the SAME bed. "I Love Lucy" is recorded as the first program/show that showed the husband and wife in bed (alibet they were twin beds) preparing to go to sleep for the night. Now-a-days nude love scenes are seen (though rarely graphic -- nipples, buttocks, hip movements, etc.) but one can rent/buy a video with all that. I recently watched a documentary on the making of "Casablanca" and they were talking about the censorship of the day. In one scene the lead male and female character (who was married to another man) were in the throes of a passionate embrace remembering their affair years before. They kiss passionately and the female asks to remember the way they were and it's fade to black then fade in with the male standing at the window (fully dressed) smoking a cigarette (a cliche if ever there was one). The documentary said that the audience is left to assume that the female is still getting dressed afterwards and that they had consumated yet another affair/fling. Now-a-days you'll get the full effect and depending upon the director/studio you might get a B-grade level pornographic scene which is increasingly in many films. Times are a changing huh? Same film (in relation to violence being discussed in this topic)... Bogie pulls a gun on the Nazi major, warns and threatens him. Eventually shoots him and the major winces and falls over presumably dead. No blood squirting out (front or back) not even a bullet hole in the uniform. Now-a-days ... well, you get the idea.

Where does society start however? In the home obviously. How we conduct ourselves to those in authority over us... our parents. It also means how they conduct themselves (their authority) towards us (their children). Every household has a set of rules as dictated by the leading parent. Sometimes it's Dad that says what goes and sometimes it's mom and sometimes it's both (in agreement with one another). It's an outward spiral that extends to schools to work and eventually to government. But it all starts in the home. How well a child obeys the rules of the house will dictate (not always of course) how well they will obey the rules (laws) of society when they leave the house to have their own lives. Of course this also includes the influences of said child's learning. What information they pick up along the way and how that information is assimulated into their own individual psyche. Standards, morals, values should be set by the parents and those (imo) should be the type that will give benefit to the society that the child is growing up in.
Learning to elude the police, shooting/beating up people for positive gain (point values) ... this will be a benefit and other examples that we've been discussion abound.
Society is going to decide what our children can and cannot do/watch/see/play. The society begins at home.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes, because the claim I was making (Grossman is unreliable as an objective source) is exactly the same thing as saying that there's no causal link between violence and violent media imagery.

You nailed that strawman to the floor!

But still, people finding that aggressive thoughts become more likely when listening to aggressive music (something even the researchers admit is a precursor to aggression, and not a causal factor in violence) isn't even close to what Grossman is claiming.

http://www.psych.org/public_info/media_violence.cfm

For example, this offers nothing on the increased link between violence and an interactive meduim. (A presumption that Grossman has been more than happy to assert for years with no supporting evidence.) Nothing in your links suggests that a definite linked to games being worse has been found. They're at the same place they were 5 years ago.


That also disagrees with Grossman's constant assertions. Granted, this was a press release, not any kind of a study, but still. I don't see this undermining the actual argument I put fourth.

It certainly does not disagree with Grossman's claims. In fact, Grossman's claims parallel those of the APA since the mid-1970's. This is nothing new at all. I do appreciate your desire to force this argument on the shoulder's of one man (Grossman). It is far easier a fight for you if you can anchor this whole argument to that strawman. Fact is, however, Grossman is a minor voice among a large group of Psychologists and Doctors who disagree with your position.

Actually, no, I don't think that those games specifically target pre-18 year olds. No more so than rated R movies of the same vein do anyway. I will concede that video games inherently appealing to kids and there are plenty of things in games, besides the sex and violence that younger kids would be drawn to. Therein lies the problem; the things outside of the sex and violence are usually what makes a game successful, not the sex and violence themselves. This is evidenced by craptastic flops like State of Emergency, BMX XXX and PLayboy Mansion, full of sex and or violence, but abismal sales numbers. I honestly don't see a boardroom full of suits at Rockstar sitting around brainstorming ways to make the next GTA more appealing to 12 year olds. The inherent problem is that the same things that make video games appealing to 25 year olds, make them appealing to 12 year olds. How do you suggest the software companies go about making games that appeal to the post 18 crowd only? It can't be done.

Last time I checked it is the reatailers and parents who are putting these games in the hands of kids, not the software companies. I am all for government holding retailers responsible for selling games to young kids, what I am not for is government telling game companies what kind of games they can and can't produce.

The software companies market to kids, that's no more of a surprise than the fact that cigarette companies do the same. Without the youth market, these software companies would not be able to compete. Willful ignorance to the contrary is not evidence.

As far as not marketing to children, they can try by not marketing their product right next to youth products on the shelf at wal-mart and other retailers. It's much like marketing Vodka in the candy section.

I understand many of you folks wish to maintain access to your favorite video games. That's fine, but that certainly isn't an argument against the effect of media violence on youth.

This is my only thought... people who base there lives on a video game, movie, etc. and act out violence acorrding to such things deserve to live the rest of their lives in a dank cell! It's not the game's fault! It is entertainment and nothing more than entertainment! I play a lot of video games myself but it's not like I'm going to go around GTA style and kill people because I know the consequences (in fact I don't really like GTA). People who play games for the sake of killing are not worth being called gamers but mearly idiots who have deep seeded problem for which they should seek professional help. And parents who don't know about there 9-year-old kids spouting of curse words that would make a sailor blush, are even bigger idiots, much as he said.That was rant-a-licious!

So your argument is there is no effect on a 9 year old playing GTA?

 

[Karushi]

So your argument is there is no effect on a 9 year old playing GTA?

A nine-year-old should not have GTA in the first place. Unless he is mentally aged enough to realize it is just a game. Like I said no one without the mental capacity to realize that is just a game deserves what they get for acting it out. It will get them out of the gene-pool hopefully.

 

[ginshun]

The software companies market to kids, that's no more of a surprise than the fact that cigarette companies do the same. Without the youth market, these software companies would not be able to compete. Willful ignorance to the contrary is not evidence.

Like I said, marketing, or designing games for 25 year olds and not for 12 year olds is impossible. It plain and simply can't be done. If you can think of a way, I would love to hear it, and I am sure I am not the only one.

As far as not marketing to children, they can try by not marketing their product right next to youth products on the shelf at wal-mart and other retailers. It's much like marketing Vodka in the candy section.

And take the rated R movies into there own little section, and take the playboy off the magazine rack, and take the cigarettes out of gas stations, and take CD's with explicit lyrics away from the other CD's and make the pay televition channels on a totally different system than the normal ones.

Do all of these things actually sound reasonable to you? If you are proposing the change in video games, then you should want it to follow through to the rest too, because there is no difference as far as I am conserned.

As far as the Vodka example goes, the liquor section at my local grocery store is within about 10 feet of the bakery section, but i don't hear anyone claiming Kettle One is marketing to children because the bottle is too close to the doughnuts. I can also by candy bars at my local liquor store, oh the horror!

I understand many of you folks wish to maintain access to your favorite video games. That's fine, but that certainly isn't an argument against the effect of media violence on youth.

I never argued that media doesn't have an effect on children, I am argueing that the people who produce/design the media in question are not the ones we should be blaiming, the people (parents) who put that media in the kids hands without even bothering to find out what it is.


A parent who gives their 12yo kid a copy of GTA and then gets mad at Rockstar when they find out that the game is violent, is absolutely no different than a parent giving a kid a Hustler, and then getting mad at Larry Flint because it has naked chicks in it. They should have known before hand what they were giving there kid.

If parents actually paid attention to their kids instead of buying them a new video game to shut them up, none of this would even be an issue.

 

[OUMoose]

:asian:

 

[Karushi]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is very, deliciously funny!!! :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Marginal]

It certainly does not disagree with Grossman's claims. In fact, Grossman's claims parallel those of the APA since the mid-1970's. This is nothing new at all.

Actually, Grossman places a far greater emphasis on the effect of media violence than the APA does. The APA issued a press release shortly after Columbine which stated that kids that act out in that dramatic fashion tend to fit into a social pattern.

1) They have a troubled home life.
2) They are ostracised by their peer group.

While Media violence may contribute to tendencies towards violence, the APA doesn't saddle the entertainment industry with all the nation's violent inclinations.

I do appreciate your desire to force this argument on the shoulder's of one man (Grossman).

I am arguing that Grossman is not a credible source. I am not stating that media violence has no impact on children.

Grossman is a minor voice

He's the poster child for the movement. He was the first to appear on 60 minutes and attack wicked games like House of the Dead as murder simulators (Which at the time, I thought was odd since that game operates exactly like Police training simulators. Definite bad guys, definite civilians that you must protect, or at least, not shoot etc... Didn't know cops were also murderbots.) immediately after Columbine.

The software companies market to kids, that's no more of a surprise than the fact that cigarette companies do the same.

This is a non-sequiter. First you're claiming that media violence is driving children to kill, now you're comparing video games to controlled substances?

Without the youth market, these software companies would not be able to compete. Willful ignorance to the contrary is not evidence.

Willful ignorance? Sony's target demographic is 18-25 year olds. The twentysomething market is the primary group that purchases video games and video game systems. It has been for years. (NPD, TRST sales data backs this up) Nintendo actively targets children, and there's a marked disparity in the availability of violent games for Nintendo systems.

As far as not marketing to children, they can try by not marketing their product right next to youth products on the shelf at wal-mart and other retailers.

I see video games sold at Wal-Mart sitting in the electronics section locked in a glass case. They are next to a Siruis Satelite radio display on one end, and a wall of TV's on the other. On the other side, Wal Mart usually stocks AV components like cables, switchboxes etc.

I don't recall ever seeing them sitting next to the toy section. (Perhaps this is just a fluke in Colorado?)

It's much like marketing Vodka in the candy section.

Or Penthouse on the same news stand as Archie's Double Digest?

I understand many of you folks wish to maintain access to your favorite video games.

Moot since I'm too old for age restrictions to effect me either way. Just another way to poision the well.

That's fine, but that certainly isn't an argument against the effect of media violence on youth.

Well, neither was the whole marketing to children pseudofactoid. You brought it up anyway.