I wrote this paper in late 2006 as a part of the AP Language and Composition course at school. It's considered above average by AP standards (7+) and it got a 91 percent. Here it is, copied word for word.

    When looking at the game market today, it has in the little more than three decades of its existence started off as a simple game of bouncing squares to full three dimensional games depicting any number of activities. Players are given a myriad of choices in games, from the actions they take to the style of clothing they wear. These games are getting attacked by the government, the media, and parents concerned for their children's health and mental state. These attackers often times present evidence of school shootings or violent rampages that were sparked by video games, when the truth is that the majority of video game players are people who eat, sleep, and work a normal job. The proponents of video game content editing often times make generalizations of video game players out of violent rampages, usually Columbine or the Paducah, Kentucky school shooting. While many "experts," the media, and the government claim that violent video games cause violent acts, there is really little to no evidence to substantiate this claim.

    The first major flaw in the claims that video games cause violence in real life is there is little, if any, evidence. Ninety percent of males and forty percent of females in America play video games (Jenkins), and, using the word "violence" loosely here, a large percentage of games must have violence in them. Even a cartoonish character jumping on enemies is violent in this sense, so why aren't kids packing pistols alongside their lunch boxes and textbooks every day? Quite simply, there's a suspension of disbelief. A game where the player goes around and blows up cars, buildings, and dodges bullets is not realistic. In real lift the possibility of this happening is rare, and police and SWAT teams would easily stop said scenario. In a video game, the player easily wields all kinds of deadly weapons that the average person would not be able to acquire, let alone control while firing.

    Henry Jenkins III is the director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies; he states that, "...no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer." In Grand Theft Auto for instance, when a player dies, their character just shows up outside the hospital, minus some money. Even if the player has no money, they still respawn (respawn: come back to life). When the player is arrested, the character shows up outside of the police station, sans a few dollars. There is no court system, no jail time, and kids know that that is false, from numerous news stories everyday about criminals having trial and being sent to prisons. Also, people know games portray impossible situations. It is the same mechanism as going to the movies. People play games to escape, just like people go to see a movie at a theater to escape reality.

    And what little evidence that has been presented is conflicting with these claims. One study found that there was a "minimal increase" in aggressive behavior (Nohn), yet Nohn claims that "scientific testing must be backed up with a psychological profile of the player," to learn the inherent personality traits of the subject playing a certain game. Jenkins also has a view here, and states that "Video games are most powerful when they reinforce our beliefs and least effective when they challenge our values." Most "normal" people do not wish to commit mass murder.

    As for the "youth crime epidemic" spreading through the country, it is a figment of terror created by the media (Ferris). The deparment of Justice in 2003 noted the crime rate was at a thirty year low (DoJ). In 2004, their most recent statistic shows the juvinile crime rate dropped to a forty year low.

    Researchers have found that people serving time for violent acts generally consume less media before committing the act (Jenkins). In one study, the players actually became less aggressive the longer the games were played (Goldstein). This suggests that, once again, there is little to no correlation between actual real-world violence and the violence acted out in a game. This goes against everything a self-appointed "expert" tells the public.

    One self-appointed "expert" is retired Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman, a former Army psychologist. While that in itself may seem to give Grossman credentials, a closer look at his research shows that he is anything but credible.

    Grossman uses behavioral modesl that were obsolete decades ago, much moreso today (Jenkins). He usus behavorial models that children are like sponges, or Pavlov's dogs, absorbing all information given to them regardless of content. Grossman, however, is not the only person to claim that violent video games are going to be the thing that turns all kids into psychopathic kilelrs. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh claims that video games do not express ideas yet also present a dangerous influence (Jenkins). Yet another "expert" is a Florida attorney named Jack Thompson who twists his knowledge of law to try and get video games banned. Jack Thompson made big news from both the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas "Hot Coffee" scandal, and also from the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion nude skin that was included in the game. Two government officials that are trying to make legislation against video games are Senator Joseph Lieberman and Senator Hillary Clinton.

    Grossman says that children are "learning" to kill and to enjoy the act of killing because the game rewards their actions with more violence (Jenkins). People don't "learn" to kill from video games. They play games as a release from the holds of reality. As for the "teaching kids to kill" claim, the Federal Trade Commission found that 83 percent of game purchases for underage consumers are either made by child and parent or parent (FTC). That means a large percentage of parents should at least be able to see what kind of games their kids are playing, and parents should also teach their children (by way of the gameplay) of what is right and wrong. In addition for the actual "teaching" that is occurring, it also provides a nice outlet for parent-child bonding time. As for Grossman's "evidence" that kids are violent because of these gaems, biologically violent people are naturally attracted to violent media which gives them an "outlet" to vent natural aggressions (Snider). Grossman also cites claims from researchers that violence in games causes aggressiveness. "Experimental research does not recognize the fact that video game players freely engage in play, and are always free to stop." (Ferris) This quote can apply to anyone. If the game is difficult and makes the player frustrated, they turn the game off and do something else. John Stossel says that "self appointed experts are so successful in propagating their arguments that the original source gets lost in the confusion. That's often how "conventional wisdom" gets born." (196) Grossman has captivated the masses with these claims, and has even written a book. Called, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill, Grossman got national recognition, appearing on several national news stations. Many people who claim that games cause violent actions cite Grossman as a source (198).

    Grossman has even gone so far as to claim the military, specifically the Marines, use games to desensitize recruits to kill. Stossel checked with the Marines and the response was entirely different. The Marines use games to teach hand-eye coordination and to work as a team.

    If the evidenceis so stacked in favor of the "no connection" then why does the media, parents, and government all claim that video games cause outbursts of violence? The media claims it because every minute spent interacting with a game is time lost watching programming, giving them their ratings (Ferris). Also, video games, specifically, the more "realistic" full 3D onces are relatively new media. The same thing was done with rock in the 1950s. A bill was even put before Congress to ban rock in 1955 (Ferris). In the 1920s and early 1930s it was comic books that would turn our children into maniacs. For a more contemporary look, it was thought in the 1980s that the heavy bass and profanity laced lyrics of rap music would turn everyone into a gun-toting gang member.

    By making claims that games cause violence, the aforementioned "experts" get television time and consequently, money, for their appearances. If they aren't being paid directly by the channel, then they're going to get money from advertising their book. Ferris has his own view on the matter. "The most disgusting thing to me is that some truly horrible high school tragedies are being exploited by the media." The government claims this to pander to the terrified public to get votes for their respective parties. Parents say that these games cause violence either because their children were violent, and they cannot possibly believe this happened, and look for a scapegoat, or were tricked by the government into believing this. Maybe their children were victims of some horrible shooting, and they look for validation. Word gets out that the shooter played a game with bloody or gory content and suddenly it all makes sense how the idea to kill happened.

    Instead of parroting the negative sides of the argument over and over again, people should be focusing on the positive effects of video games. One of the positive effects is that video games are fun and the self-esteem boost is healthy (Nohn). Games can also be educational. Kurt Squire, a history techer, taught below average minority students to like history with the game Civilization III once the students learned that they could create a black or Native American empire (Jenkins). Jenkins also says that video games can develop problem solving skills by forming hypotheses, acting on them, and then evalutating the game response. Jenkins goes on to say that, in Grand Theft Auto 3, "nothing stops the player from stealing an ambulance and racing injured people to the hospital or grabbing a fire truck and putting out blazes." The game gives incentive to do this. For example, finishing the 10 levels of carrying people to the hospital gives players free health boosts. Finishing 10 levels of firefighting leads to reduced damage from fire, and ultimately, invulnerability from flames.

    Likewise, a successful game developer, Peter Molyneaux, makes games that encourage ethical and theological reflection through games such as Black & White and Fable (Jenkins). In Black & White the player is an all-powerful god in charge of a group of followers. Also in the player's control is a large animal of their choosing. This animal learns by the player's actions and instructions, and the player can keep the loyalty and love of their subjects by being benevolent and giving them things when needed, or by keeping them in line with an iron fist and fear. The character's actions also affect the environment and "hand" of their character. Being nice makes flowery meadows and a "normal" hand. Being evil makes large wastelands and the "hand" turn red with black pointy nails. In Fable, the player takes control of a young boy and guides him through life. He can be as evil or as good as the player wants. The player's character also affects characters in the game. A "good" hero has people in the game following him, cheering and applauding. A "bad" hero will make the same characters terrified by the player's character which makes some aspects of the game, such as buying equipment, more difficult.

    More and more researchers are finding that games can enhance the learning experience (Jenkins) not just about events, but learning about the ethical values of ourselves. "In playing a game, we choose what the characters do. Using this, we can examine our own values by seeing how we behave within virtual space." (Jenkins) Also, the cliched "video game playing loser" is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Video games are becoming very social, with the advent of online play, interacting with people on the other side of the world. Video games also increase hand-eye coordination (Snider). This is exemplified by not looking at the keyboard while typing, for instance. Fast-paced shooters develop hand-eye coordination better than puzzle games such as Tetris.

    If games are not the cause of violent crimes and school shootings, then what is? According to the Surgeon General, the strongest risk factors for school shootings are mental stability and the quality of home life. Also, some people are naturally violent. On violent offenders, a research session was held, and violent criminals were found to have 12 percent more white matter in the brain (Discovery Health), further pushing the point that violence, on the whole, is mostly biologically motivated. Outside influences surely have an effect, but media is far down the list of influencing a person's entire psychiatric state.

    Video games are more of a blessing than a curse, and are more likely than not demonized for presenting new innovations of entertainment for younger Americans. the video game industry is still gathering strength, with the recent relese of Sony's PlayStation 3 and Nintendo's Wii, the game age is entering another era with more games, and consequently, more players. Violence in games should not be embraced, yet it should not be shunned as it is today. For the morally and mentally average person, violent games can be a release, rather than a fuse, for violent actions. Aggression can be exercised, making that exercised anger much less of a threat, and actually making the violence levels decline.