Wow. Not calling you out but there have been no studies showing clear causation between video games and violence. Kids who are introverted/awkward are going to find an escape regardless, I'd say that games are a consequence not a cause. And new media outlets are more of a problem for socialization.
Taking a step back, wouldn't violent media be more of an immediate problem? Cartoons, shootings, news are almost instantaneous in delivering scenes of aggression. You have to actually work to be violent/aggressive in games. And how much stimuli can you get in comparison? This argument has come around so many times in the past decade I could Google a talking point and find twenty rebuttals. I'm just tired at this point.
Well, while the article doesn't give too much detail, Handsley's position itself does seem to be that. Ie, any issues involved are not unique to video games, but violent media in general. So the potential influences of a violent video game should be considered in the same way that one considers the influences of violent movies, TV shows, etc. So direct cause and effect between individual consumption and person is highly unlikely - as is the case with all media - but small and subtle shifts in perspective as reinforced by the regularity of a particular portrayal? Quite possible.
Of course, everyone also tends to focus on the negative effects - 'look at how this graphically violent game might be making people antisocial' - rather than the potential positives - 'look, this game about catching monsters has people making more friends and going outside'! I remember a recent-ish study being dedicated to examining the correlation, and potential causation, between having grown up reading Harry Potter and being a generally more tolerant, more open minded person. You
never have an equivalent sort of study for video games, even though we're at a point where they've been around long enough that such a study would be possible.
And then of course you have the police chief who's at the centre of the article. Possibly the biggest red flag for me among what he says is the traditional cry of 'think of the children', even though the people who would most need to listen to such a warning are parents who keep failing to pay attention to the rating on the box and make an informed decision regarding the content. Kinda reminded of how parents took their kids to see Deadpool earlier this year, on the grounds that it was a superhero movie and aren't superhero movies meant to be watchable by children? The onus is on parents to make informed choices on the content they paid for, not just creators to consider their audience - especially when the intended audience is made expressly clear from the start.
_/¯ Is one of these relevant to anything? I don't really get it.
