by Professor » Fri May 09, 2014 8:58 am
On one hand, I don't believe that a "violent" video game will take a "normal" kid and make him a mass killer.
However, I do believe that a kid with violent tendencies can use a violent video game to "hone" his skills and act out his fantasies. The military uses video games as a matter of course to train soldiers. It works the same for kids.
If a kid who (subconsciously) wants to commit violence is not exposed to violent things (violence in songs, violent video games, irresponsible parents with guns, etc.), then he is much less likely to learn exactly which guns he wants to use, how to aim and fire, how to track people, where to shoot people to have the most effect, etc. Video games aren't the cause, but they are linked.
Instead of outlawing such games, though, we should try harder to enforce the age restrictions. Many violent games have a "M" rating so that kids under 17 cannot purchase them. What about making it so that kids under 17 cannot play them at all? With current generations of consoles and computers, it should be relatively easy to enforce that. If a kid has an account and is under 17, he cannot play certain games. It's not going to be 100%, since a parent can work around that. But, it makes it harder than simply "parent buys the game and gives it to the kid". The parent would have to actively manipulate the kids' account and lie about their age.