Video Game Violence

	Associated Press--International gaming company MECTO,
Inc. recently informed the public that the American 
market would soon see the release of a boundary-breaking,
multi-platform game. The new game, "Happy Or Sad Polite
Frigid Extravaganza," is a game of a type nobody has
ever seen before. In "HOSPFE," the player controls one
of several characters on "an arctic adventure." The
characters' genders cannot be distinguished by appearance,
because they are wrapped in down jackets that make them all
look, literally, like the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
The game is nothing more than a set of minigames, in
which the characters ice-fish, sled, figure skate, build
snowmen, and use shovels to tunnel out of a cave after
an avalanche.
	"[HOSPFE] is designed to be non-violent,
non-erotic, and non-competitive," says MECTO CEO Ganyi
Tampae. The game reportedly did not market well in Japan,
but MECTO expects high sales here. "We think the game will
be popular here in America," said Tampae. "Especially
among conservative mothers who think violence is
overwhelming videogames."
[End excerpt]
	In case you couldn't tell, the above article was 
not written by anyone from the AP. I wrote it. I am an
avid gamer. I recently was forced to listen to the
biggest bit of manipulative, hate-filled dementia I've
ever heard. A speech about how violence in video games
is prevalent and should be banned. And those of you who
share that view, or know someone who does, can tell the
person who does to open their eyes, look around them,
part the blissful pink fog of existence, and step out
into sanity.
	I will now systematically go through and refute
every single point made by the person who spoke earlier
this week, often with illogic. I'm even going so far as
to quote Fred Gallagher, master of MegaTokyo, a gamer's
webcomic. So without further ado...
	"To me, you can neither condone nor excuse your
behavior based on the games you play. There is nothing
wrong with escapism as long as it doesn't go too far.
In fact, you can argue that a certain amount of it is
healthy and normal." So spake Fred Gallagher, in one
of his rants on MegaTokyo.com, a webcomic that bases
its episodes around a pair of avid gamers. Both are
routine players of Quake 3. Yet neither one seems to
go around shooting people at any time outside the game
world. Wonder why.
	It has been said that parents do not aptly
control the presence of video games with high-level
ratings. Parents also exercise little control over
the cable television, the cable modem, or the CD
purchases of their children. Those few who do, control
video games as well. Those parents who care to control,
do. Those who don't, don't. A simple fix is thus: Make
them care. Stores already card for M-rated games.
Parents can thus buy M-rated games for their children.
A fix: Don't let people with children under the age of
17 buy M-rated games at all. Mod the cards people carry.
A kid doesn't just randomly come into acquisition of a
violent game; his parents buy it for him knowingly!
Of course, we could always stop the problem at the
source, and keep games that would earn M-ratings from
hitting the market.
Doesn't the publisher have a right to publish the games,
though? And don't the members of the public have a right
to purchase these games, if they so desire? How do we
deal with the frenzied masses of single, collegiate
students who vent their anger on their professors by
sniping their roommates in a quick round of multiplayer?
It has been suggested that video games be censored,
because most video games, in the proud tradition of
the Grand Theft Auto series, condone violence to
progress through the game. To support the fact that
people who say this don't have enough knowledge to
accurately make such a statement, I challenge you all
to, within two seconds of reading this, name two other
games that condones realistic, gun-the-opponent-down
violence. Anything? Didn't think so.
	Okay, I'll play along for now. You want to
censor video games because they condone violence as
means to an end. Fair enough. But we must also then
censor everything else that condones violent behavior
as means to an end. Firstly, we'll remove movies. No
movie can be published if it earns over a PG rating.
All movies with more than PG ratings will now be
destroyed. Secondly, we'll remove books. No book
featuring the words "Death," "Dead," "Died," "Die,"
"gun," "shot," "pain," "suffering," "wound," "bullet,"
or any similar words will be published. Those that exist
will be burned. Those CDs featuring similar words as
mentioned above, or any profanities, will be melted.
No CDs featuring such will be allowed to be produced.
	Note that I included the word "pain" in the
above list. Why? Because pain is bad. Be it the pain
of a shot to the belly by a .44 Magnum, the pain of
burning your hand on the toaster oven, or the pain
of having your heart broken, pain is bad. Thus, it
stands fit to reason that we also by these rules
eliminate all materials about love and emotion. We
want to shelter our children from pain, so that they
will be prepared for the world out there. Right?
	Say we do all that. Say we banish everything
emotional from our society. What happens when one day,
a religious fanatic hijacks a plane and crashes it into
a skyscraper. Or when an anarchist picks the president
off with a single bullet through the head. Or when
your little emotionless, apathetic four-year-old sees
a homeless guy on the street. What will you do then?