The Issues of the Violent Video Games as Portrayed by the Media

You hear this on the news all too often; a mass shooting has occurred, there are people dead, with many more injured. Over the next few days, you will hear many people debating on the issue. Many people lobby for new laws to prevent things like this from happening, but some seek to blame the tragedy on something, usually a form of modern media. There is one form of media that seems to get a lot ofblame forviolence: video games. Video games have long been a source of controversy, and one popular controversy is that violent video games are to blame for the real-world violence we see today.

This leads people to conclude that in order to curb violence, violent video games should be banned, because what better way to end violence than to cut it at the source? Well, the problem is that video games are not to blame for violence in the United States, and therefore, should not be banned.

One reason why violent games should not be banned is that violent video games can actually be beneficial to us.

First of all, sometimes, playing a violent video game can be a Way to release stress and anger. Instead of taking out your anger on real objects or people, you can release your anger by playing a few rounds of Call of Duty, or Team Fortress 2, for example. In a 2007 study that surveyed reasons that boys played video games, 45% said that they played video games because video games “helped me release my anger” and 62% played because video games “helped me relax.

Get quality help now

WriterBelle

Verified

Proficient in: Video Game

4.7 (657)

“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

” (proconorg 1) Video games allow children to see the consequences of violence and war, without having to see or experience it first hand. Some argue that violent video games teach children to kill people outside of video games, because of how they pour their anger into killing people in a video game. I disagree, because killing people in a game and killing people in real life are two very different things.

Children can distinguish that they are playing a video game, which is a fantasy, totally different from real life Because they can tell between fantasy and reality, this prevents them from actually conducting violence outside of playing video games. Another one of the reasons violent games should not be banned is that violent games are not actually linked to real-life violence. Video game violence is a widely-studied topic, and many studies have been conducted of the effects ofviolent video games on children, teens, and adults According to a study by psychologist Vaughan Bell, “video games do not increase violent behavior in real life.” (2) In fact, in his study, he stated that the real cause of actual violent incidents are household and mental factors, like if the subject has depression, or is raised in an unhealthy or abusive environment. Also, according to statistics from the FBI and from video game spending records, while Americans spend more and more on video games each year, violent crime rates are actually decreasing as video game spending increases In fact, violent crime is actually at an all-time low here in the United States. (Proconorg I)

Now, some people argue that violent games have been linked to increases of aggressive thought in lab tests While this is true, the increases were short- term and having aggressive thoughts does not equal actually acting out on those thoughts. Also, the study by Vaughan Bell (1) notes that this short increase in aggressive thoughts is also linked with subjects who watch violent movies and television shows, so banning only violent video games is not enough. The last reason why violent games should not be banned is that banning violent video games would be a form of censorship, which goes against the principles of the American way. Banning violent games would be restricting free speech, which according to the US. Constitution, violates the first amendment. (5) Also, it would be a form of unnecessary censorship. If parents do not want their children to play violent games, it should be their responsibility to make sure that their child does not play them.

There is already a video game rating system, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), which gives ratings for video games, the equivalent of the MPAA giving ratings for movies. There are clear labels on the front ofthe box that tell if a game contains violent or otherwise inappropriate content. Some argue that violent video games fall under the category of“vulgar content,” which would mean that it wouldn’t be protected under free speech. Now, if violent games were considered vulgar content, then violent television shows, books and movies would have to be banned as well. This would most certainly cause quite a controversy In conclusion, the costs and hassle of banning violent video games greatly outweighs the little to no benefits that come from banning them. Parents need to take responsibility for what their children are playing and talk to them if they have any issues. We need to not rely on the government to do everything for us, and we need to understand that censorship is not the solution to solving violence in this country. Whether you play violent video games or not, you can still make your own life choices.