IV second time around

I can honestly say that I have no idea what we're supposed to do for this post. It looks like we're just supposed to put exactly what we did last time...so thats what I'm doing...

1. a. Violent games create violent people.
b. Violent games only affect certain groups of people.
c. Violent games don't affect anyone.

2. Right now the dominant perspective is that Violent games create voilent people. This is because the people who believe that violent games are ok aren't vocal about it. The people like Jack Thompson that want violent games to be taken care of are very vocal about it. They take every opportunity to get their opinion out there.

3. I think the view that violent games don't affect anyone should be the main view. If violent games created violent people, I would have already gone on like 20 killing sprees. Jack Thompson uses the fact that school shooters play violent games to justify his claims. This might be convincing if only like 1% of teenage guys played violent games. I think the chances of a non-gamer shooting up a school aren't very good simply because there are less teenage guys that don't play games than there are teenage guys that do. Plus, the people that shoot up schools aren't really very popular to start with. Since they don't have friends to hang out with what else are they going to do? You should be thinking something along the lines of "I guess they'll play video games."

4. There doesn't really need to be a policy to support my views. Really a lack of policy is what I'm calling for here.