there are studies that that disprove his claim and honestly it relieves stress, not highten it and make you want to perform the same deeds. if a kid is in close reach of a firearm it isn't the fault of a video game if he goes on a rampage.

it's crazy to think that we're allowed to have guns but if republicans had it their way we wouldn't have videogames. honestly republicans are the ones who play the most violent games anyway. i like a sensitive little story driven RPG myself.

He has a point !.... Many Video games and movies do anesthetize kids and young people from REAL violence without doubt. They detach them from the real world of REAL violence. However without the REAL GUNS there would be no danger and they would manage to reach adulthood without having slaughtered a few dozen people. Maybe the games etc do provide the mental 'prod' some unbalanced people need to go off on a killing spree - whether or not that's true - it will never take place without access to serious guns would it ? Another view is that without video games, maybe there would be far MORE mass shootings !!!!

Gun laws would take protective firearms out of the hands of the very people that need them for protection, not those who would choose to harm others.

SIZE DOESN’T MATTER HERE.

Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee show clearly why nothing gets done about gun laws. Alexander says “...the Second Amendment to the Constitution limits what we can do about guns."

Actually the Second Amendment simply says:

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The Constitution itself doesn’t say you can’t make laws against what type or size weapons we make, use or carry. Or what accessories go with those weapons. It’s just not in there. Laws can be written against any type weapon at all... there are no limits inferred in the Constitution.

Other than the implied inference that one must be in a “well regulated Militia” for the rest of the amendment to have any affect, there is absolutely no restriction on, to, or about the ”Arms” referred to in it.

Originally, when it was written, Arms applied to the a person’s weapons of the day. Flintlock rifles, pistols and swords. Knives, pitchforks, and such could be used as weapons of course, but those weren’t important when hunting for your family or fighting the enemy. The enemy also had those same type weapons, incidentally.

So to say Congress is limited about “what we can do about guns," that just isn’t true.

And he knows it. He also knows no one is talking about or trying to "infringe" on anyone's "rights." The size or type of a person's weapon is not a right.

Glad to see your blog getting the story right on media violence. Studied this at school, and ended up corresponding with Heussmann, Anderson, Bushman, and other key academics trying to raise the alarm on violent media. It was my introduction to the cognitive bubble. Amazingly, my professor was completely uninterested in any counter evidence to a theory that she had created her career around. Now I see that this is just human nature.

Amazingly, Anderson and co. had the hubris to think that they could take on the 1st amendment in the supreme court two years ago. They lost, of course. What they are so convinced of -- a causal link between media violence and violent behaviour -- was judged "speculative".

For those interested in a proper academic treatment, there are plenty of review articles to be found on google-scholar. But be warned. When someone like Anderson, the AAP, or APA write a "scientific review", they are doing a sales job. Important counter evidence is omitted. (One can only surmise that political thought destroys any chance of scientific thought -- but these people have chronic problems with the notion of objectivity anyway. To them, science is a political tool.)

So read the review articles, but also read Freedman (2002), "bought-off" by the media industry. (Read his preface for a counter-argument to this.) And also read David Trend's excellent little book "The myth of media violence: A critical introduction."

There's a stretch of road in east Tennessee, the Lamar Alexander Parkway, which feeds into Pigeon Forge and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Whenever we fire up the station wagon for a Smokies trip it costs us $60.00 each way in extra gas to avoid this roadway and any signs featuring it. I'd rather pay the extra money than arrive at my cabin pissed off and hoarse from screaming obscenities at every Lamar Alexander sighting.

My head hurts from hitting it on the desk this week. I'm starting to think it's just laziness with the GOP. We can't limit the 2nd amendment? Yes, we can, but you don't want to stand up to the gun lobby and your crazy base. We shouldn't do anything about climate change because China's not doing anything (which isn't true)? You're just too lazy to stand up to big oil and, again, your asshat crazy base. We can't do anything but stricter border control for an immigration policy? Really? It's just about as secure as it can be. Again, laziness. They say "no" a lot, but what are they FOR? Alexander WOULD do something about video games, but again, poor dude's hands are tied. What do you and your party want to do about our big problems, Lamar? I know, get rid of the social safety net so that we can pay off our debt. Then everything will be be good.

pretty sure they have video games in other countries.

Senator Alexander, with all due respect, S.T.F.U! Using your right wing infected logic, I, an addict of the SimCity4 game, should be a city planner/developer by now.

How about you and your fellow obstructionists stop trying to curtail our freaking rights and do something novel. You know, like FIXING THE DAMNED ECONOMY?!

They've truly evolved, haven't they? Their predecessors used to blame rock and roll.

Why don't people stop thinking about what the Constitution says and apply TODAY logic. No disrespect intended but it's so easy to hide behind words that were written nearly 200 years ago and do not necessarily apply (without some tweeking) in the 21st century.

The same goes for the Bible otherwise eating lobster would be an abomination and adultery punishable by death.

We know that guns kill, that is what they are designed to do. What motivates killers is not as clear. I do not believe that we can watch violent movies, violent video and computer games and it not effect some people. I understand that the military uses video games to train combatants for combat. We do know that the Newtown shooter spent a lot of time playing video and computer games that were very violent, can we say with 100% certainty that they had no effect on him?

Many movies and television shows are violently graphic. We are a bellicose nation who has been in continuous combat since 2001. We shoot and kill people all over the world, because we choose to. No judge, no jury, just the executioner. The US government is the largest weapons dealer in the world. Wherever there's killing we more than likely have weapons in the fight.

I know that we are a violent society, while no one can say for sure that violent video and computer games caused a particular shooting I think that it is safe to say that those things add to our incivility toward one another.

When I was a kid there were no video games, but there were Audy Murphy movies, and we used to get our toy guns and go outside and pretend to kill Germans and Japanese in pretend war games those of us who played "the enemy " did our duty by falling down and playing dead, these fantasies didn't seem to inspire mass shootings, they were just a game we played.

I grew up playing Grand Theft Auto. Now, I'm a car salesman. Maybe there is a correlation ...

So we should ban people who play violent video games from owning guns?

If this guy is "one of the brighter bulbs" in the GOP, then he is only a 40 watt ( and the rest must be about 20 watt- not even bright enough for a refrigerator bulb!! What crass ignorance( and bad grammar ,too!

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/482095_10151470174961341_1714903219_n.jpg

I think the biggest difference between guns and video-games is that you can't accidentally shoot someone with a video game. (IE we encourage our kids to play with one and not the other)

gotta love the hypocrisy. 'protect the constitution! the second amendment must be protected!'

apparently the first amendment, not so much.

you'd think 'no scientific evidence' would mean something to people. or common sense. or the fact that the millions of people playing violent video games aren't currently erupting into an orgiastic horde of murder and mayhem out on the streets.

Blame the video games makers and not the gun runner of the NRA. The reality of what is happening in America is a gun in the hand of anyone creates a change perceived and unperceived, just like those men who joined the rape in India rather than intervene on the woman's behalf. The American psyche has been programmed since radio and television began broadcasting shows with guns shooting. Guns have been glorified by the like of Roy Rogers, Gene Autry to "Saving Private Ryan." The reality is there is nothing wrong with improving background checks on all gun purchases and implementation of stricter enforcement to catch those who do not follow the rules. The NRA's tact is the same as the TEA-Republican's tact on doing away or cutting back on enforcement of regulations to keep Wall Street and big banking from creating another "housing bubble" or big bank bailout. On a related note about money - did you know Social Security(F.I.C.A.) taxes are paid only on the first $100,110.00 of income(wages) and billionaires and millionaires do not pay any additional taxes over that first $100,110.00. Tax liability should be spread equally and equitably across the entire population. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are suffering the consequences. We well know the truth of the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the concentration of power in stricter, less compassionate hands. "Sweep the HOUSE CLEAN....in 2014"

I am a gamer. I have been a gamer since the days of my childhood, when the first Nintendo was released. I have played shooters since "Duck Hunt" was a brand-new Thing. I have played MMOs competitively at the world level. I have logged thousands of hours into my hobby. I have never once hurt anyone in anything other than self defense.

Video games don't kill people.

They may have violence in them, but no more than television or books. Yes, books, the video games of ages past. Books- which have been blamed and burned for inciting immorality over the centuries. Books- which have been banned for introducing concepts that some cultural circles find offensive or contrary to their way of life.

Video games improve IQ. They improve reaction times, problem solving skills and even reading skills. I know many a parent who introduced their child to reading with titles like Pokemon and Final Fantasy. There have been scientific studies showing that surgeons perform more accurately in the operating room if they game. Gaming also helps our military, surprisingly enough- providing our servicemen with social contact with the outside world when they are on the front lines, not to mention speed and accuracy with technology.

Video games also serve as a healthy funnel for natural human aggression- aggression that would BE there regardless of exposure to video games or other violent media because it is a part of who we are as a species. We channel that aggression in other ways that are equally violent- sports and hunting come to mind.

What IS unhealthy with video games are two things- addiction and inappropriate exposure.

* One shouldn't play so much that their lives are ignored.

* One, as a parent, should not buy their 4 year old a title like Saints Row or Grand Theft Auto. Parents should play games with their children- video games are not a baby sitter and many parents treat them as such. By playing with them, parents can provide important context and missing information that a young child might miss due to their limited life experience.

Video games are a reflection of our society. If there is violence, misogyny, racism or other objectionable content in a game- it is because they exist here and now in our society. The GoP don't want to tackle those issues (mainly because their policies as of late are, on the whole, racist and sexist) , so they complain about the 1st amendment protection of video games as an excuse not to do anything.

Quite frankly, it's almost looks like learned helplessness.

Republicans believe that it is OK to regulate the 1st amendment, but not the 2nd.

To borrow a statistical concept, the likelihood of something happening must be factored in the consideration of its "price" to society. We should not build a six-lane bridge to carry 100 cars per day. Protecting against highly unlikely events that the second amendment is supposed to protect against (there is no statistical data to predict them) is far less important than protecting the freedom of speech of all Americans.

I just noticed the list of countries they're comparing us to, and being aware of how much lower the U. S. ranks in pure violent crimes (rather than just firearm homicides) than so many of these other countries that are monarchies. Does it strike anyone as at all interesting that yes, these countries may not kill their own people, but (with the exception of possibly Canada) they seem to do pretty well killing people in other countries as the aggressors?

Wow! My new Tennessee slogan is rocking today. "We're dumb so you don't have to" has been used three times already. We are moving on up the ladder of dumb@!$%#!! Watch out.

Our old buddy Lamar needs a reality check. Time to purge our congressional halls of old clueless white guys.