I do think that video games and television have played a rather small part in filling a childs head with violence. A childs curiosity could lead them to do something they might regret. They might be curious and think "What would it be like to stab or strangle someone?" and actually try doing it. The simpsons and itchy and scratchy are fine. Cartoons do not really do much harm to children.

Holy fuck. Exuse my language, but that's all I could come up with to begin my review. Ho. Ly. Fuck.

Games, books and shows don't make teens kill people. I just don't believe in that. Sure, it might encourage bad behavior in unsupervised, un-guided children, but in mentally healthy teens and young adults, no.

I've been watching Ren and Stimpy since I was six, and I work at the Toronto Humane Society. I listen to Van Halen, Ozzy Osbourne, the Sex Pistols, Twisted Sister and all that other 'evil' music since a very young age and I've never attempted suicide or shot my math teacher. I have a cabinet full of nintendo games, many of which have exsessive violence, and I've never chopped my mother's head off with an axe in her sleep.

People use media as an exuse for violence and premiscuity. Can a copy of Delta Force pick up a gun and shoot someone? No. People kill people. Not guns, not games, not T.V. People.

Killers existed before video games and super-violent movies. Do you think Hitler and Stalin sat around in a teen-aged Adolf's apartment together playing Unreal Tournament and reading Johnny the Homocidal Maniac in the 20's? Do you think the Zodiac killer was inspired by his Pong game to kill young couples in the 1960's? Or did he have early acsess to ? Though, I think these are bad examples... The people I've listed were smart enough not to be influenced by pixels and ink on pages (Regarding Zodiac, don't you dare bring up the book The Most Dangerous Game, because Arthur Allen isn't the killer.). Of course, you understand my point...

Again, I stress the fact that people kill people. Not games, CDs, Itchy the mouse, or television.

I must say I disagree. Firstly, my own personal evidence against this. One, I grew up watching the Simpsons. Literaly. My parents have watched it since it came out, with me. I was a very small child then too. Also, I'm probably the biggest suporter of animal rights out there. (ok maybe not the /biggest/ supporter, but I still well up when I go in the pet store at the mall. Such small cages and not even any mats on the floor and the animals resort to sleeping in there bowls...)

Also, I'm an avid player of video games. They range from anything like Tomb Raider, to Crazy Taxi. I've never had any urge to shoot someone. In fact, I find letting my anger out on little digital people helps me release it in a safe way, so I don't /really/ go and get in fights with people I'm mad at.

I had a few more things to say, but I'm afraid I must go. Keep writing!

Quiet One

first of all you you really should accept annon. reviews. Secondly do you really think that every one who plays violent video games is a socialpath. How stupid do you think that we (violent video gameplayers) are. If we were all like that a ton of people would be killed by us everyday. I play violent video games like gta: vice city but i don't go to school and kill people. I never considered the thought.

The kids at columbine that killed all those people had mental illness and appeared to have been neo-nazi or something. The kid who killed those people at jonesboore wasn't influenced by video games. when he was 5 he sexually abuse a little girl. He was a bad person. The columbine kids were bullied at school. Before you say something like this you should consider other possiblitys first.

Still you did a good job of expressing your opinions though i severly disagree with them.

I've never understood why people feel the need to blame video games for someone killing others; its the person's own fault if he/she is weak-minded enough to actually take some TV show to heart. We need to start placing responsibility on the people who commit the crimes, not TV or radio or video games.

It's the kid's own fault for choosing to ignore the distinction between reality and a computer game. Hell, it's their own fault for taking it too seriously. While it can't be said that the violence in video games, television and movies play no role in shaping a child's view of the world, it also can't be said that they are the ones directly responsible for some teen's murderous rampage. Ultimately, the person makes his own decisions, he's the one who pulls the trigger or activates the bomb. Just because he might have seen something like that on television doesn't mean he's not the one accountable for his own actions.

P.S. Every cartoon has violence. Maybe not to the extent of Itchy and Scratchy, but is it any better to advocate the liberal use of bombs and anvils on helpless woodland creatures?

I must disagree. As an avid gamer, I can tell you that I've never been inclined to go on a shooting rampage-and it's not because I don't have the means; I'm a firearms enthusiast, as well. That said, all I do is target shoot-I don't hunt, because I don't like to kill an animal I can get at the grocery store. Huh. If I can't bring myself to kill a duck...

Are the parents to blame for exposing their children to this material, you ask? Damn straight! The government can't be expected to raise your children for you-that's not its job, for one, and it doesn't have the money, for two. The parent is responsible for raising the child, and should decide what media the child should be exposed to. Frankly, I wouldn't let my [hypothetical] kid play certain games or watch certain TV shows and movies until he/she was mature enough to distinguish the difference between reality and fiction, and you can bet said kid would be in deep shit if he/she disobeyed me.

I wonder how video games are any worse than books, which are damn-near untouchable with past court history and that pesky little First Amendment. I'm also an avid reader, specifically of military science fiction, and there is some incredibly graphic and violent material out there. David Drake, for example, basically writes about his experiences in Viet Nam in a s-f setting-which makes for quite disturbing literature. David Weber is quite fond of having his characters bisected by cartwheeling shards of metal and/or explosively decompressing when his starships go into battle. And John Ringo... well, let me give you an example: In "A Hymn Before Battle," which is a fantastic book, btw, a character in a suit of powered armor is hit by a laser. The laser cuts a long slice in his armor, and the energy transfer liquifies his body. The superheated liquid remains splash out of the slice in the armor. This scene is described in great detail, and is quite horrific, but it also has great emotional impact. Books can be just as graphic (if not more) than video games, movies, and TV, but if you dare consider censoring them, you're a Nazi book-burner. What a strange dichotomy.

I guess what I've got to say is this: Censorship ain't right.

~He Who Walks On All Fours

Very nice essay. :-D

I think that since you're wondering about what leads to violence in kids, or maybe violence all over America, you need to see a movie called 'Bowling for Columbine'. It's a documentary by Michael Moore. It's basically him trying to find out what's so different about America. And in the end, he doesn't give you an answer. The film's aim is just to get you thinking.

Anyways, yeah...good stuff. :-D