Gamer's Should Not Be Part of the Voilent Video Games Debate

GAMER'S SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE VOILENT VIDEO GAMES DEBATE

In a recent debate California senator Leland Lee stated that gamers' should not be part of the violent video games debate because they have no credibility and are already prone to violence. This is a statement which I think has no value because the senator is excluding the main target, they should have a voice and what better voice to have than the gamers who play and identify with the product. "Yee introduced a bill in 2011, which allowed the state of California to block the sale of video games that were deemed to be violent to children."(NEWS.SOFTMEDIA.COM). The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. It was also proven that the most popular video games are games on the wii platform such as 'Super Mario' and the more violent video games were more popular with adults 18 and over. Has stated by Kate Edwards the leader of the International Game developers association. If you have a product which is more consumed by adults why would you want to exclude them from an important debate topic. In the recent Sandy Hook shooting it was known after the incident that the shooter's favorite game was 'call of duty' which is one of the most violent video games on the market. This video game was played for hours by the sandy hook shooter. In regards to Sandy Hook, before the incident took place, why wouldn't you want to hear the reason and effect, playing a video game like call of duty has on the Sandy Hook shooter, from the mouth of the player himself, which would be like doctors doing research on drug addicts and excluding actual drug addicts from the research. The Senator in his experience may believe the gamers have no credibility when in fact the gamers' has the most credibility for the debate because they can provide insight that no one else can.