Despite some of the hyperbole by anti-game activists, the evidence is thin. Particularly when other factors are controlled, there is little evidence that games, whether violent or not, are related to negative outcomes in youth.
ack in August the American Psychological Association (APA) released a new policy statement on video games in which they acknowledged video game violence can't be linked to violent crimes, but asserted that such games provoke milder acts of aggression.
Violent video games don't exist -- in fact, nor do nonviolent video games. That latter point may actually be easier to demonstrate. Given the way the term "violent video games" is defined in the scholarly community, almost all video games are violent video games, including Pac-Man.
Gun control. Self-control. Lack of parental control. There is a lot to say about senseless killing -- and there is very little other kind of killing on the streets of South Los Angeles and many other communities.
Just this week, a consortium of 230 media scholars sent an open letter to the American Psychological Association, asking the APA to retire their misleading policy statements on media violence, and to refrain from future, similar policy statements.
I've been speaking with researchers who participated in Biden's meeting with leaders of the video game industry on Friday, and they're in agreement that there's no evidence of a link between violent videogames and violent people.
The Second Amendment was apt for its day, a shrewd mix of freedom ("the right to keep and bear arms") and duty (the "well-regulated militia" clause). But it was meant for the realities of American life over two centuries ago.
I just wish that LaPierre had been given more time to pass around more blame for gun violence in America. Given the opportunity to further expand on the true culprits, there's little doubt that the NRA would happily blame America's deadly epidemic on any number of things.
As each new revelation comes to light, I can't help thinking, why was this secret in the first place? Wouldn't it be better if diplomats shared their concerns openly -- rather than hiding them from the public?