Shared publicly  - 
Jason Honingford's profile photoPaul Tassi's profile photoPaul Jewkes (PJOnABike)'s profile photo
I don't agree. I'd be more offended by EA making ad money off their games and not passing the savings on to the gamer.
I am curious why you don't see a correlation between real life violence and video games. This may not be the thread to do it on, but I would love to hear your thoughts.
Help me understand the logic of this:

"Watching 2 hours of violence in a movie or video game has no effect on our behavior, but a 30 second SuperBowl commercial is worth 3 million because it has so much effect on our behavior. It will make us run out and buy a product."
The logic is that 99.9999999% of people don't go run out and kill someone after playing a video game. Or playing 20 years of video games.
So- "The only common thread is how easy it is to get access to guns in the US. And when legally purchasing isn’t an option, the Sandy Hook shooter was denied trying to buy a gun himself, we can still find guns in loads of places because of our gun obsessed culture. In this case the shooter dipped into his mother’s accessible gun collection to find the weapons he used for the shooting."

If it were harder for Adam Lanza to get a gun his video game habits would have kicked in and he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it...but shoot a nerf gun? 
People don't have their video game habits "kick in" and suddenly want to kill people. That just isn't a thing. And video games teach you nothing about how to actually shoot guns, incidentally.
Add a comment...