This right now is a hot topic in the U.S. and this topic will always come up when violent acts occur, someone want's to blame somebody and video games become a easy target. NRA wants you to keep that assault rifle with the extended mag even tho the person were already mentally unstable; but stop what's supposed to be 17+ year old advlts from playing "violent" video games. Anyone else here see something wrong with that? I've gotten online playing Gears of war 3 and have heard what could be no older then 8 years old yelling at the top of lungs F*** You D***k while playing. What were his parents doing during all 3 of the 15 min quick matches we played? I mean unless that was Mike Tyson playing that kid should not even have had a chance to play the game, not to mention the lack of parenting by letting that kid curse like that.(by the way the kid lives in the US and it was just passed 10 PM PST on a weekday) Parenting is the issue, not the games.

I grew up playing video games and was there from pretty much the beginning (I'm 47) and I have seen more aggression from kids playing football then video games. Is football at fault? of course not. Why isn't there a MA-14 rating display before the local news starts and after commercials before the news program starts again? Some cartoons have it. Again... anyone see something wrong there? The news media does not help with information on this topic, they just highlight and report the 3% of the worst part of studies, and throw away the other 97% of the result that was positive or inconclusive. I read a abstract from a "journal of experimental social psychology" online that if only the "abstract" and "highlights" sections were read it would make video games a cause of aggression and violence

"Highlights

? Violent video games increased both hostile expectations and aggressive behavior. ? Hostile expectations mediated the effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior. ? Effects occurred for both men and women, but were stronger for men."

But what about if you read all of it (pro or con) and could poke large holes in it? You would never know the holes exist if all you read or was told to you was the "abstract" or the "highlights", and that's what we are getting, just the highlights. Parents need to be held more accountable, not the gaming industry. Plus the person doing the study could be bias from the beginning (pro or con) and then the study would already be flawed. We all have a little bias, but if we don't keep them in check and keep a open mind the true results good or bad will never see the light of day.

He's a quote I like:
"After the research, then what? Since the industry already self-regulates by putting a rating system in place to indicate violent games are not meant for minors (and stores "who" refuse to sell to them as a result), it’s not clear what, if anything the video game industry needs to do from here on out. Making games less violent as a whole would be censorship, and few are really calling for that. A government proposal could suggest a law that it would be illegal for minors to buy games (as some states have tried), but as it’s store policy in all major retailers already, that wouldn't do much. Purchasing these games or not is entirely up to parents".

Truth be told not even an assault weapons ban or high capacity clip restriction, will prevent another mass shooting. But good parents will go a long way to help prevent it.

What are your thoughts??