First-Person Shooters

I posted a link to Anthony Martin's latest column on Facebook about debunking common mass shooting myths, and some discussion ensued about the effects of video games. One person expressed uncertainty over dismissing them as a cause, and I replied:

My personal belief, not scientific, but just intuitive and based on what I see in life, is that gaming might be a catalyst for some--but anyone that close to the edge could be set off by anything, and attempts to regulate, control and ban would be as "successful" as "gun control"-- in other words, anyone who can't be trusted with a [gun, video game, matches, fill in the blank] can't be trusted without a custodian--and they need to leave the rest of us the hell alone until our actions prove ourselves a danger to ourselves or others.

He cited Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's work and the 2001 Stanford Study on Media Violence.  My response:

I've promoted Grossman's work and am aware he believes that, but he is offering an opinion, and his outstanding credentials in his field of expertise do not make him infallible in all. In re studies, I admit I have not competently analyzed the Stanford one, because I don't possess the specialized education to do a thorough job of it. My layman's understanding is that it artificially measured "aggression" (to include playground taunts) and did not separate TV viewing from video gaming in terms of causation. So is extended viewing and gaming the cause, or the fact that your parents (or parent) leave you unsupervised for so long? And what does that say about the example they set and the limits, expectations and standards they set, and behaviors their conduct induces and allows? So many other factors can have effects on the results. Plus, only one limited study hardly seems sufficient to declare certainty. I've seen enough"gun studies" to be wary of accepting any as the final word. Bottom line: I don't think anyone can take the population of gamers and come up with a sound and reliable prediction of what percentage will be caused, persuaded or motivated to commit homicide as a result, because it is so infinitesimally small as to have no statistically measurable validity, and parenting, economic and environmental factors have not been filtered out--and that goes for Stanford, too, which was done in 12 Bay area schools, meaning their subjects were overwhelmingly children of "progressives"--tell me THAT won't screw a kid up. I see no legitimate law that could be enacted here, but plenty of ways for those who would rule us to gin up concerns to exploit and further their control.

While it's just my opinion, I don't think I'm wrong, especially about the "law" part.