Time for a Change

Most people would agree the events that transpired at Sandy Hook elementary School

were extremely upsetting. In this tragic shooting, teenager Adam Lanza killed 26 people, 20 of

them children. Less than a year later, a video game named The Slaying of Sandy Hook

Elementary, entered the internet market. This game, simulating the school calamity, invites the

players to shoot the “mother” before heading to the school to shoot the children and the teachers.

The game also offers a “gun control” option where the player has “to stab mom repeatedly” to

kill her and then grab a “katana sword and a sledgehammer” to proceed with the school killings

(Thompson). The game finishes with the protagonist killing himself by either shooting his head

or by taking a pill overdose (in the gun control option). The maker of this game is an American

young man living in Australia. He justifies the creation of this game as his way to spread a

message asking for better gun control in the US. Similarly, another game enacting the 1999

shootings in the Columbine High School made the market in 2005. This game not only leads the

players to simulate the massacre, but flashes real pictures depicting the distressed survivors,

crying family members, and the two murderer teens lying dead on the school’s library floor.

These two games, as insensible, violent, or cruel they may be, are protected in the US under the

freedom of speech. Moreover, any video game, regardless of its controversial or violent content,

may be purchased by any minor in America. However, a great number of people believe it is

time to put a stop to this practice. This group believes the laws in the US should change to allow

our government to control certain aspects of the video game industry, because violent video

games harm children and because the current system of video games regulation is inadequate.

Video games have been around for more than forty years, but have become increasingly

controversial over the past twenty years due to the many advances in technology. In the 70s and

80s, consumers would play video games such as Pac Man in coin operated machines at arcades.
However, the advent of personal computers in the 90s allowed gamers to play video games in

their own homes for as long as they desired – and without the need to buy coins. Further

progresses in computer programming permitted the creation of games with more realistic

elements. Wofenstein 3D, released in 1992, was one of the first games to provoke great debate

due to its innovative “first-person shooter” (FPS) feature (Kent 148). This type of game allows

the players to “feel” as being the shooter, because they can see what the character in the game is

“seeing.” The public felt uneasy to witness their children enjoying games where they felt as

being the killers. Doom is another game that quickly became very popular in the 90s. It also

inspired much controversy due to its PFS capability and upgraded feature of “real-time strategy;”

a tool that enables gamers to collect more weapons and resources during their killing spree (Kent

284). Video games now are extremely interactive and realistic. They are also available through

the internet and allow for multiple players around the world – even people who do not know

each other – to form virtual teams to virtually kill each other. Some people find this casual take

on killing very disturbing.

In the middle stages of video game production, many people also became very concerned

about the increasing violence in the imagery and content of the games. Scenes of gore and

brutality accompanied by depictions of blood, flesh, and bone became common features of

violent games. In Mortal Kombat, a fighting game created in 1992, the players are required to

“finish” the opponent. This includes removing the spinal cord of a decapitated character or

removing the beating heart of a wounded game figure (Kent 302). In addition, the public became

to object controversial game topics such as the one in the game Grand Theft Auto where players

are the criminals invited to fight the law. This game utilizes foul language and vulgar imagery

including reference to prostitution, drugs and racial slurs. Players are called to steal, kill officers,

beat women, and even torture opponents. With the promotion of these types of games, people
started to question if the constant enacting of the games’ violent fantasy could have a negative

impact on the youngsters who so often played them.

The debate about violent video games and their possible influences in the susceptible

minds of teenagers grew even more after the public learned the teen perpetrators of the

Columbine school shooting were fanatic players of Doom. Although a definitive connection with

the school shooting and this game has never been proved, there are many who still believe the

adolescents’ obsession with Doom lead them to commit those horrible crimes in 1999. Several

other shootings by youngsters increased the public’s apprehensions about the possible

connection between FPS games and children learning how to shoot. These games have also been

found to adversely affect children by promoting their repeated practice of aiming and shooting,

especially considering children learn by imitation and role playing. (Anderson et al.). Michael

Carneal, another avid player of Doom, did not miss a shot during his rampage at the Paducah

school. He shot eight times, and hit all eight times; three students in the head and five in the

torso. Three of the students died and one became paralyzed from the chest down (“Kids into

Killers”). The public quickly attributed the precision of Carneal’s shooting to his intensive

“training” while playing FPS games. In 2004, teen Devin Moore killed three officers of the law

with accurate shots in their heads while trying to escape imprisonment after stealing a car. He

claims to have never held a gun before. His game of choice was Grand Theft Auto. The families

of his victims felt so strong about the connection between the video games and the shootings

they sued Sony, the video game maker (“Kids into Killers”). However, spoke persons for the

major video game companies were quick in responding to such accusations. They pointed out

that the scenarios played in the game are pale comparisons to the real events; plus, they maintain

holding a game console never equals to holding a real gun. The industry claims the precision of

the shots were only coincidental and not due to any video game training.
 However, the evidence video games are valid in improving people’s shooting skills can

be attested by its employment by the military. First to Fight, for instance, is a video game

originally developed by the US Marine Corps in training marines to lose their fear of pulling the

trigger and shoot during times of potential stress. This game was later adapted and released for

commercial use becoming an overnight sensation Engagement Skills Trainer, is an interactive

video program that “provides real-life scenarios to help soldiers determine when to shoot and

when not to shoot” (Crawford). Virtual Convoy Operations Trainer is another FPS program that

“puts a team of soldiers in different roles in combat scenarios, training them to communicate and

work together” (Crawford). Another example of the impact of FPS games can be seen in a more

recent event. In July of 2011, Anders Breivik employed the FPS game Call of Duty: Modern

Warfare 3 to improve his shooting skills before killing 69 people in a political youth camp in

Oslo, Norway. Breivek explains, “[The game] consists of many hundreds of different tasks and

some of these tasks can be compared with an attack, for real. That's why it's used by many

armies throughout the world. It's very good for acquiring experience related to sights systems”

and it helps to “develop target acquisition” (qtd. in Pidd). Therefore, the claim that video games

– in special FPS games – do not offer training capabilities is false.

The controversy behind violent video games inspired the conduction of numerous studies

to investigate the potential influences of video games on the minds of minors. Craig Anderson,

director of the Iowa’s State University Center for the Study of Violence and renowned social

psychologist researcher in the area of violence in media concluded in 2010 a meta-analysis of

such influence. He and his associates evaluated 130 other studies performed around the world in

more than 130 thousand subjects for the past two decades. The studies were carefully scrutinized

for scientific validity and accuracy. Furthermore, variables such as style of upbringing, parental

control, home environment, cultural setting, economic level, educational level, personality traits,
and co-morbid psychological disorders (i.e. depression) were carefully considered in the studies.

Contrary to waht the game industry claim, the results revealed more than a simple positive

correlation between exposures to violence the media, including violent video game playing, and

increase in real aggression; they revealed direct causation (Anderson et. al). After much

speculation, there was finally a reliable study confirming the public’s fears: violence in media

and video games can influence children to become more violent both at short and long runs.

The defenders of video games claim such studies failed to clearly establish parameters for

aggression. They dispute the measures of aggression in such studies are biased and not adequate.

However, the scientists point out they used doubled-blind studies to avoid such biases. The

socio-psychologists also defend the validity of their researches by demonstrating that the

parameters of aggression were the same among the experimental and the control groups. The

response of the subjects to a potential aggressive act is what matters in the study, not the

parameter for the aggression per se. Aggressive acts were classified from mild to high. The

scientists also point they had to be age appropriate and evaluate multiple facets of aggression, not

only a physical act. For example, young children better present their aggression in drawings,

while older children better represent their aggression in storytelling. Therefore, one same set of

parameter for aggression would not be effective across all the studies, but were valid as long as

they remained the same among the experimental and control groups. The game industry insists

this data only shows a “casual” correlation of increased aggression and playing of violent games,

because the experiments did not elicit dangerous acts of aggression and only analyzed the

aggressive tendencies of the participants. Anderson and colleagues recognize the validity of this

position, since the ethical conducts of experimentation in humans forbids researchers to subject

the participants or the public to situations of real danger deriving from extremely aggressive
behavior. Still, the researchers maintain that the causation relationship between fantasy

aggression and real aggression is a fact even if only casual during several of the studies.

In addition, other studies have shown concerning body changes while playing aggressive

video games. Brain images conducted during violent game playing showed temporary changes of

decreased activity in the pre-frontal cortex. This area of the brain is responsible for personal

traits of judgment and impulse control. Moreover, during the violent game playing, the areas of

the amygdale were highlighted indicating activation of this area of the brain that is responsible

for people’s emotional memories and feelings such as fear and aggression. Furthermore, the

adrenaline levels of the participants were also increased at long periods of time during game

playing. A surge of adrenaline is our body’s response to a dangerous situation. This change leads

to an increase in the heart and respiratory rates, increase in visual acuity and sense of alertness in

preparation for the “fight-or-flight” response (“Playing”). The investigation of the long-term

effects of such chemistry elevation for long periods of time in teenagers has not yet been

concluded, but has raised concerns among scientists. The susceptibility of brain changes was also

found to be deeply linked to the immature nature of children’s brains, which are greatly

vulnerable to external influences as they grow (“Playing”). Studies have shown that the pre-

frontal cortex does not completely mature until the age of twenty-five. Until then, all of one’s

experiences combined with genetics will account in forming one’s personality.

Another big concern about children playing violent video games is the potential they will

lose empathy for others. The public speculates if constant exposure to bloody scenes where the

players “kill” the opponents in many different and gruesome ways will cause the gamers to be

less sympathetic to real life situations of suffering and death. Some studies conducted in this area

support this preoccupation. For instance, some studies have demonstrated that teens who had

played violent video games for thirty minutes were more willing to press a button to deliver a
shock to another person (the shock was fake, but the subjects were unaware of that), than the

subjects who did not play those video games. Popular violent games allow the player the

decision to shoot or not its opponent and to even watch it die. In these games, the more the

players kill, the more points they gain, and the more they advance in the game. Studies find these

features tend to desensitized children to the real devastations of death. Funk et al. study

concludes: “Exposure to video game violence was associated with lower empathy and stronger

pro-violence attitudes… In violent video games empathy is not adaptative, moral evaluation is

often nonexistent, but pro-violent behaviors are repeatedly rewarded” (33-34). Another reputable

study about the desensitization effect of video games in youngsters states, “Judgment is

influenced by one’s own emotional and physiological reaction to the injury” (Bushman and

Anderson). The issue of desensitization became even more prevalent after the Columbine

massacre where the perpetrators laughed and joked during the killings.

Opponents dispute the notion video game violence increases aggression behavior in

children by pointing to the overall decrease in crime in the US for the past twenty year. Pro-

gamers attribute this decrease in crime to the advent of violent video games in the 1990s. They

state these games provide tension relief and allow children to express their aggression in healthy

ways; therefore, reducing crime statistics (Jones 115). However, the overall decrease in

criminality in the US has only a correlation relationship with the increase in violent video games

consumption. The opposition has never conducted any study to establish a causation relationship

between the two factors. This decrease in crime can be attributed to other aspects such as “stiffer

penalties on youth who are found guilty of violent crimes” and better control of youth’s access to

guns (Blumstein 39). Furthermore, a deep analysis of crime rates reveal that there have been

more senseless crimes committed by youngsters in this same period of time. Alfred Blumstein,

Professor of Urban Systems and Operations Research for the J. Erik University, writes in his
“Youth, Guns, and Violent Crime” reports, “Although youth violence has declined in recent

years, a rash of school shootings in the late 1990s generated significant public concern and

attention from policy-makers” (40). Plus, there has been an increase in bulling in schools in the

past decade. The National Center for Education Statistics 2007 report reveals a 24.5% increase in

reported bullying at schools in the past ten years (qtd. in Hartnig). This data does not support the

opposition claims that violence in video games has helped youth crime to decrease in the past

twenty years. In fact, crimes performed by children have increased in cruelty (Blumstein 43).

Many people are also skeptical violence in video games lead to violence acts. They

question the fact there are millions of children who play violent video games, yet there are not

many significant acts of violence in real life because children know how to separate fantasy from

reality. Craig Anderson has the answer to this doubt. He makes an analogy to tobacco use and

lung cancer. Scientists have shown a direct link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, yet

not everyone who smoke will get cancer. Nevertheless, the causation relationship between the

smoking and cancer has been confirmed by science beyond any question. Furthermore, school

shootings, killings and other acts of extreme violence are not the only acts of violence one should

watch for. Bullying is an act of aggression that may go about unperceptive by many. In addition,

Anderson reminds people that violence in video games is only one of the several factors that can

lead to aggression. He agrees playing video games alone will not drive someone to kill or to

bully others. This risk factor has to take in account other factors that can augment or decrease the

person’s aggression (Anderson et al.) Still, this risk factor exists and should not be ignored.

In view of these risks, numerous people are questioning the current regulation of video

games. 25 years ago, after the release of Mortal Kombat, parents alarmed by the game’s violent

imagery demanded a censorship method which they could utilize to monitor what their children

played. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was created in 1994 out of this
request (Barrett). It rates games based on their content to different age groups. Games marked

“E” are for everyone; “E 10+” are for everyone, but may be challenging for children beyond 10;

“T” games are for teenagers (ages 12 to 17); and “M” are for adults (above 18 years old). One

problem with this system is that the raters of the video games are only given portions of the

games to review. However, most interactive video games have hundreds of possible play hours.

The reviewers cannot have a clear picture of the game by only analyzing portions of it. To make

matters worse, those portion of the games are given by the game producers themselves. In this

mega-million industry it would be unlike for a video game company to give an unfavorable

portion of their video games to be analyzed. The producers know teens are their biggest audience

and chances are the video game makers will try to carefully choose what they present to ESRB to

have the games marked as “T.”

This likely faulty regulation prompted several concerned citizens to demand a

governmental control of the production and selling of violent video games to minors. However

this idea encountered severe opposition from many others. One of the biggest concerns regarding

governmental intervention in the game industry is that it would infringe in the right of freedom

of speech. This group states the first amendment right is an absolute and irrevocable right of

every US citizen and company. However, in 1968, the proceedings from the US Supreme Court

case of Ginsberg v. New York, which involved the sale of pornography to a minor, allowed the

government to interfere in the freedom of speech in behalf of minor. The rational for such

intervention was: “the State has an independent interest in protecting the welfare of children and

safeguarding them from abuses” (qtd. in “Violent”). This case, although 55 years old, represents

a moment in history where the need to protect children from harm took precedent over the First

Amendment. The opposition claims violent video games do not fall under the “obscenity laws”

deriving from Ginsberg; and, therefore, its restriction would be unconstitutional. However,
California State attorney, Steven Gruel, asserts that “Ginsberg was not meant to exclusively

apply to sexually explicit materials, but can and should apply to equally harmful materials

depicting violence” (qtd. in “Violent”). Other expressions such as child pornography and videos

representing rape are not protected under the first amendment either – they are too harmful to

society. In the same way, the regulation of violent video games should take in account its

detrimental aspects to children.

Resistant groups to governmental control of video games relate the responsibility of

monitoring how, when and what children play video games to parents. However, parental

supervision has proven insufficient. The reasons may be many: ignorance of video games

content, lack of time to monitor the children, difficulty in setting boundaries, or even lack of

resources (there is no technology that allows parents to electronically restrict playing times on

video games). Moreover, despite all the compelling evidence violent video games are harmful to

children, the overall selling of these types of games has never decreased. For instance, two years

after the Colorado shooting, Doom was voted the “number one game of all times” (Kent 355).

The controversial Grand Theft Auto game series has sold more than 150 million copies around

the world and continues selling (Kent 402). A new edition of Call of Duty, the game used by

Breivik to practice his shooting skills, broke all previous records of sells producing 775 million

in its first week– only 4 months after the Norway massacre. In addition, statistics show that about

80% of video games and consoles are bought by consumers older than eighteen years old

(“Percent”). This alarming data suggests parents are the ones buying the violent games for their

children.

The group against governmental supervision further asserts that video games should not be

subjected to its control because most children know right from wrong. However, the idea

children are not equipped of self regulation due to their immature thinking process is
scientifically proved and well accepted. The court systems treat juveniles differently than adults

and generally allows for more lenience in the sentencing of the young. Supreme Court judge

“Anthony Kennedy cited a body of sociological and scientific research that found that juveniles

have a lack of maturity and sense of responsibility compared to adults. Adolescents were found

to be over-represented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior” (qtd. in

“Violent”). Moreover, there are laws already in place regulating teen driving and drinking. In

addition, “almost every state prohibited those under age 18 from voting, serving on juries, or

marrying without parental consent” (Vilolent”). The states have also determined what age a

young person can lawfully consent to sex. It is true these laws are broken to time from time, but

they are a governmental attempt to regulate impulsive teen behavior. Without trying to imply the

Bandwagon fallacy, the regulation of video games to protect minors would not be substantially

different than these already existing laws from the US states.

Almost every time there is a mass murder or a senseless crime committed by a child, the

public is quick to blame the video game industry. People are horrified by the notion video games

could be the culprit behind the killings. Yet, the games continue to be played in large scale. Sales

of polemic video games actually increase after such tragedies. The violent content of video

games continues to augment and new features allowing more realistic playing experiences

continue to be developed. It is time for a change. The video game industry is not going to

regulate itself adequately to the expense of losing billions of dollars in the process. Parents

apparently are not completely aware of the potential harm violent video games can pose on their

children and have not been good regulators either. Violent video games have been proved to be

harmful to children by heightening their aggressive behavior in multiple aspects. The

government has the duty to protect its citizens from harm – both children and adults. It is time

for the government to establish a better censorship on video games’ production and distribution
in a manner that will educate the consumer about the real content and harmful potential of each

game. The government should establish a commission to review video games’ contents before

they hit the market. Also, this system should not allow terribly offensive materials such as The

Slaying of Sandy Hook Elementary to be published in the US. We should not wait for another

tragedy to happen before taking any action to prevent it. It is time for a change.

Very nice work incorporating the comments on the draft critique. This is both readable and

logical. 95% (A-)

 Works Cited

Anderson, Craig, et al. “Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial

Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review.” American

Psychological Association. American Psychological Association. Mar 2010. Web. 4 Dec

“Are Violent Video Games Turning Kids Into Killers?” American Free Press. American Free

Press. 21 Oct 2013. Web. 4 Dec 2013.

Barrett, Gerald. “Legislation on Video Game Violence.” Cga.ct.gov. Office of Legislative

Research for the State of Connecticut General Assembly. 4 Apr 2008. Web. 12 Dec 2013.

Bushman BJ, Anderson CA. “Comfortably Numb: Desensitizing Effects of Violent Media on

Helping Others.” Psychological Science. Print, 2009. 20 (3):273-277.

Blumstein, Alfred. “Youth, Guns, and Violent Crimes.” The Future of Our Children. Print, 2007.

Vol 12 (2). 39-53

Committee on Public Education. “Policy Statement on Media Violence.” American Academy of

Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics. 19 Oct. 2009. Web. 4 Dec 2013.

Crawford, Stephanie. “Do Gamers Make Good Soldiers?” Military Direct. Military Magazine.

nd. Web. 12 Dec. 2013

Funk, Jeanne B., et al. “Violence Exposure in real-life, Video Games, Television, Movies, and

the Internet: Is There Desensitization?” Science Direct. Journal of Adolescence. 2004. 27

(2) 23-39. Web. 12 Dec 2013.

Hartnig, Sarah. “Student Bullying on Increase, Federal Statistics Reveal.” School of

Communication University of Miami. School of Communication University of Miami. nd.

Web. 12 Dec 2013.

Jones, Gerard. “Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe

Violence.” New York; NY: Perseus Books Group, 2002. Print.

Kent, Steve L. The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon, the Story Behind

the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World. New York; NY: Three

Rivers Press, 2001. Print.

"Percent of Children Able to Make the Purchase Unaccompanied." Media Violence. Ed. Noah

Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints

in Context. Web. 27 Nov 2013.

Pidds, Helen. “Anders Breivik 'Trained' for Shooting Attacks by Playing Call of Duty.” 19 Apr

2012. Web. 12 Dec 2013.

"Playing Violent Video Games Makes a Hostile Difference." Video Games. Ed. Laurie Willis.

Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in

Context. Web. 4 Dec 2013.

“Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media.” Apa.org. American

Psychological Association. 2005. Web. 4 Dec 2013.

Thompson, Luke Y. “I Played the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre Video Game.”

Topless Robot.21 Nov 2013. Web. 4 Dec 2013.

“Violence in the Media — Psychologists Study TV and Video Game Violence for Potential

Harmful Effects”. American Psychological Association. American Psychological

Association. Nov 2013. Web. 4 Dec 2013.

“Violent Video Games Cause Aggression in Children and Should Be Regulated.” Media

Violence. 2012. Web. 12 Dec 2013.