Critics of the violence in video games say children are too impressionable to sit for five hours a day not just witnessing violence, but interacting with it. They claim that all the negative imagery on the screen seeps into teens’ subconscious and desensitizes them. A child will learn what he is exposed to most often, and in most video games, violence is the primary problem-solving option (Schroeder). When provoked, these teens react in a violent manner because it is what they have been taught by video games.
Others say that video games have merely been made a scapegoat by the faulty parents of America who are afraid to admit their own part in the problem. The movie and television industry also point the finger at video games because as long as games are being blamed, the movies and television are safe. Supporters of video games say that video game players are all over America, and yet only a few have committed horrific acts of violence. They say these select few were mentally unstable before playing video games, and it is just coincidence that they were gamers. “I’ve been a computer nerd since I was a kid and I’m not going crazy any time soon” says Brian Deuell, an avid video game player. (Deuell).
Both sides of the argument cite research that supports their position. However, these studies are often done in ridiculous setups using outdated and unplayed video games as a basis. Jeff Green, a writer for Computer Gaming World, wrote an article on one study that concluded that there was a link between teen violence and video games because after playing a violent video game, test subjects gave a longer noise blast to an opponent than they did after playing a nonviolent game (Green 136). It said that “in the short term, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts.” “Just waking up in the morning tends to prime my aggressive thoughts” claims Green. This study and many others like it, some defending video games, make it hard to put stock in the scientific side of the argument for now. Until better studies are done on this topic, the argument remains a collection of different opinions.
One such opinion is from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman who retired from the U.S. Army in 1998 and has written many different books on the subject of teaching others how to kill effectively. He states that video games “destroy your violence immune system and condition you to derive pleasure from violence” (Grossman). Then he says that “once you are at close range with another human being, and it's time for you to pull that trigger,” desensitization from media destroys your natural resistance to violence and you are more prone to shoot the gun (Grossman).
Being an avid video game player, I agree with Grossman on his point that video games probably do desensitize youth. However, I do not think that this is as much of a problem as Grossman would have people believe. In his article, he tells a story about two teens who decided they would go rob a convenience store. One of the boys, who was a video game player, had a gun pointed at the clerk. When the clerk turned around, the boy accidentally shot him because of his reflexes. Col. Grossman argues that if he had not played violent video games, he would not have shot the clerk. He says that it was reflexes that the video games taught him that caused him to pull the trigger. This may very well be the case. Playing video games might give you quick reflexes, just like playing sports will help your coordination, but there is another factor here that Col. Grossman does not address. What were the kids doing in the convenience store with a gun in the first place? There is not a single video game on the market that teaches you how to hold up the local drug store. There was definitely something wrong with these boys before the clerked turned around and was killed.
The same could be said of those who committed the school shootings in Columbine a few years ago. It was discovered that the killers were avid players of a popular video game, Doom (Dickinson 100). Because of this, they automatically linked the violent acts they committed with the video game industry. At first, this seems like a logical conclusion, but in reality, almost every child these days plays video games. It is unfair to draw a parallel between a child who commits a vile deed and violent video games merely because he played them. It is akin to saying a child who murdered his brother also chewed gum, so this must have been the reason he did. It is unreasonable to assume this because every kid chews gum. It is also unreasonable to say video games were the sole reason for the Columbine murders because almost every child plays video games. So although video games may have made the actual killing act easier because they were desensitized to shooting guns, there was obviously something wrong with these children before the video games that made them want to murder innocent people, which is nothing like the game Doom.
Some people may be alarmed at the possibility that their children are being desensitized from violent video games, but is there anything wrong with simple desensitization? Just because a child is desensitized to human suffering doesn’t mean he enjoys or condones it. A doctor who is desensitized to physical human suffering from working in a hospital would still stop and help someone they encountered who need medical attention. The only difference is that they would not become emotional about the situation. It is my belief that unless a child has serious psychological problems to begin with, desensitization will not be a force that pushes them to commit violent acts of crime.
My personal solution to the uncertain question of whether or not video games cause violence is for parents to strictly monitor their child’s game time. I believe the subject is too speculative to come to an absolute conclusion, but if parents do fear the violence in video games will manifest itself in their children, then they can check the ratings of a game. All video games have a rating given by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) from “E-everyone” to “AO-adults only” (ESRB). If the ESRB’s guidelines are followed, then parents can be sure that their children are playing the game that is right for them. I do not think there needs to be a banning of video games or a strict set of rules put on the industry like some have suggested. Not only will that cause a major national debate relating to first amendment rights, but it also just doesn’t make sense to do that when so little is known on the subject at this point. “We can't make social policy based on the statistical aberrations of a handful of abnormal kids," says Henry Jenkins, author of From Barbie to Mortal Kombat.
I am willing to believe that violence in video games causes desensitization in teens, but I disagree with the idea that it causes violence in youth. Desensitization has a very bad connotation, when the truth is that it does not automatically lead to violent acts. The children who play violent video games and have committed horrendous crimes were a mere coincidence. They were had a violent nature because they were mentally and psychologically deficient, not because they shot a few aliens in an electronic game.
??
??
??
??
Davies 2
