We should fund it until we get the study that shows the answer we want.

I've been researching video game violence for years, with the reason being that I wanted to know if the industry I was going into was really all that bad for violence. It's fine. There has not been found a causal relationship between video game violence and real life violence. All studies that have concluded that there is a relationship have been deeply flawed. There has been a ton of research that has gone into this, and once you look at all of it in detail you know the truth.

Sweet, let's waste more money and go further into debt.

This at least solves the issue of people not believing the results of studies because they're funded by the games industry.

They should spend this money on research between the connection of mental health and stability and violent crimes. To me that seems more applicable to the situation.

In other words:

President Obama has declared that the body of existing research in the connection between violent video games and real life violence doesn't align properly with his personal bias. As such, he is declaring that further research should be done to make such a connection.

What this article conveniently fails to mention is that this is but a small part of the plan - the majority of which is focused on gun control and mental health care.

Apology issued for my oversight below.

Has there been much if any research *not* funded by the video game industry? If not, this really does need to happen.

Money would be better spent feeding poor people.

What a waste of time working on another study that will result as inconclusive at best.

Here we go again is right. How many times has this "research" been done now. Yes, studies have found that playing violent video games raises aggression levels and adreneline levels while playing and shortly thereafter. SAME THING THAT SPORTS DO. And other perfectly normal events in life.

Maybe because it is government funded, once no correlation is found, this whole charade can stop. What the government should do is fund classes called "Parenting 101, how to raise your children".

"Here we go again" ? Isn't this exactly what the IGDA asked for? In the open letter on January 9th, our industry group said....

"The Need for Science
Unlike some industry groups, the IGDA does not seek to impede more scientific study about our members’ products. We welcome more evidence-based research into the effects of our work to add to the large body of existing scientific literature that clearly shows no causal link between video game violence and real violence. "

Honestly, let the game industry - maybe the ESA - donate $10m to the government to fund the research. I'm not saying that the industry should conduct it, since it's important that we're not perceived to be influencing it. I *am* saying that this is a waste of taxpayer money (to prove the industry right), but a worthwhile expense of industry money (to repair the image of games in the public eye).

Agree with @Rodolfo, David & @Mike

There has been plenty of "research" done, but each and every time I see "research" from sociologists/psychiatrists/"professionals" in the field they are riddled with huge assumptions, and you can tell the funding and science behind said projects is always VERY leading towards a specific outcome (Video games cause violence) rather than to study and observe anything that might be positive effects of video games.(I have seen some good ones, but they are few and far between and they don't get much ink in the US)

Here's a good example:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/shootaim.htm
(Research form Ohio state that concludes people who play video games "can teach you to shoot more accurately and aim for the head"... Leading science anyone?)

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of how to conduct scientific experiments would tear these "studies" apart, but folks (who have it in their best interest to scapegoat video games) are all lining up to parrot these studies as real science. (Really Ohio State should be ashamed calling this stuff science)

The folks doing the studies always have "years" of research under their belt, and each study always CONFIRMS exactly what they were looking for to begin with (Video games = violence). The scientists are in a hurry to "prove something" so that they can get funding/ go on TV as an "Expert" so that they can hock their new book or study which just reinforces these ridiculous things.

FYI here's where you might have seen stuff by Mr. Bushman...
"He has over 130 publications in peer-reviewed journals, including in the top scientific journals (e.g., Science, Nature). His research has been featured on television (e.g., ABC News 20/20, CBS Evening News, Jim Lehrer NewsHour, O'Reilly Factor), on radio (BBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, CBC) in magazines (e.g., Scientific American, Newsweek, Time, Health, Sports Illustrated), and in newspapers (e.g., New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today)."

Of all his years of research, has a study ever resulted in video games having a positive effect on people--- or have they always CONFIRMED his suspicions that they cause violence?--- I'd question the fundamental validity of the anyone who does research that continuously confirms something... Like a fortune teller, I could save the general public (and Ohio State) alot of money to tell you hes continuing studies about the topic will always return the same results ... video games cause violent behavior.

"Science"...it aint what it used to be.

Side note: Video game research is not just limited to media effects research. We're working on getting something together that highlights a wider array of game research.

I'm going to have carnitas for lunch.
Mmmmmmmmmm.
Delicious violence.

Can the public image of Video Games get even worse?

So where's the call for Research in why Parents and responsible purchasers of 'Violent' Video Games fail to recognize the [M-Rating] on all games yet still provide these games to kids? Or when Employees of Best Buy, Target, Wal-mart, etc. ask for your ID when you purchase the game because it's M-Rated.

Where's the call for personal responsibility? There's sufficient common sense currently in this country to know that you wouldn't hand your teenager a bottle of Whiskey nor let a 5-10 year olds drive a few laps around the block in your Ford F-150.

Ratings on games is probably the most responsible thing the Games industry can do. The next big hurdle isn't changing games - it's educating the masses that there are some games for Kids, some games for Teenagers, and some games for Adults. This works very well with beverages and movies - this shouldn't be a difficult leap for our Medium.

Note - the excuse that Games are just too new, etc. doesn't work. Mainstream home entertainment systems and Arcade machines have been around for over 40 years.

Additional Note - this is a Chicken-Little "The Sky is Falling!!" knee-jerk reaction by the government and the low-information populace as well. Just 25-30 years ago, people were screaming bloody murder because Dungeons & Dragons and other RPGs were killing kids and promoting Satanism.. (which is equally nuts, considering that we still have tons of kids and there's no mainstream church of the Anti-Christ) :)

Here is a video of the president's statements.

http://youtu.be/qHhwTEzR5Is

edit: Never mind the post has been updated with the above link.

Every time I've heard the existing research discussed news reporters declare that a connection hasn't been proven "one way or the other" belying the fact of course that there is only one way, and the "other" way is that violent video games don't result in violent behavior. I know President Obama has a lot of experience trying to sell the stimulus as having prevented a second recession, but you can't actually prove a negative.

What would happen if they found a strong unequivocal causation pattern?

I have no problem with scientific research. Those that oppose it give those outside the industry the impression that we have something to hide.

Seriously they've been doing this song and dance with us for over a decade now. The Game Industry may make billions of dollars, but we also lose billions of dollars. We're a risky market.

I'm not working my butt off to bribe some politician 10% of my money, to be left alone. These dinosaurs need to leave and make room for a generation that understands the difference between a cable modem and dial-up.

"With regards to Evolution, the jury is still out" - George W. Bush

Obama ignoring all existing research doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

Trust me, the games are so fucking addicting, gamers don't have time to go out and kill people!!

I believe this is easier than they think it is.

If you are mocked, bullied, beaten or rejected during your childhood, you develop some hate towards people who hurt you. Playing videogames is just an activity you can do on your own, but it doesn't stimulates directly to the will of killing people, that iniciative must be a consequence to many other external and internal psicological damages coming from people, which everyone will deny their respectively responsabilities.

I'm saying this because during my childhood my classmates found great ways to torture me. Phone calls threatening me and my family, girls insulting me for no reason whatsoever and bullies beating me 4 on 1, blaming me for thefts I didn't do and the list goes on.

The only time I could feel in peace and safe was when I was at home, playing videogames. Enjoying good music, overpassing obstacles, beating up bosses and yes, I played Doom II, I killed millions and millions of monsters, but I never cared, I never felt anything about killing fictional monsters, and most important, I never felt a connection between playing violent games and doing an actual killing to my classmates, although I did enjoy the adrenaline going through my veins. Instead, what I used to feel was that I, a beaten up person, was capable to overcome obstacles, that all the adrenaline in my blood could be used to become stronger. With some endurance, I could "level up" enough to face against my classmates and claim for my own safety and peace in school, sometimes I did with lesser violence, other times I managed to reason, both experiences, although hard and hurtful, were better than standing there doing nothing about it.

I spent most of my teenage with headaches and inner pain, trying to learn how to talk things out. People were nicer at me, but the traumas made me get away from people to stay safe. As a result, I feel I've lost over 15 years of my life, and I'm just 24.

Along with videogames, training at the gym cheered up my spirit. Feeling stronger each day gave me a vision that things would improve eventually, and thus I never gave up. I've spent hours trying to beat up a level, and the satisfaction after achieving it is... glorious. Good stories have also helped to develop some thought about how events happens, and how I could try to revert some abuses. In the end, things were starting to look brighter, but were not enough.

This is where the good news start. 2 years ago, doctors discovered I had a 8cm cyst over my brain, explaining why my emotional state and my body movility were so damaged. The joy of understanding why I felt so different, the headaches and the inner pain was amazing. If it weren't for my own will to improve myself, I should have been dead a long time ago, as simple as that. Videogames made me live long enough to survive, period. It doesn't matter if I played Call of Duty, Pokemon or GTA, they were always games, and it was always me learning how hard situations could be solved, in one way, or another. Knowing that videogames solutions lead to "real jail conditions" in real life, does it make sense to apply violence, even if the situation is hard?

Given the reasons above, some murderers might think it's worth the cost.

So, why am I telling you all of this reader? Add a decade of abuses, misunderstandings and irrational experiencies and I could say pretty much killing my own classmates seems a legit and rational idea. Why? Because if I have to go to school everyday to live like the way they treated me, I'd be safer without them. Therefore, go pick a gun, shoot them, and end the problem.

But three things here: I was smart enough to control my rage and pain, found a way to liberate it through gym and videogames.
Second, this is important, I COULDN'T REACH A GUN. In my country, Chile, getting guns are a really complicated task, unless you get them ilegally (and their quality will often kill you instead of the victim)
Third, I RECEIVED HELP. Family and other friends were always there for me, helping and cheering me up. I played games with them, and that unity made me feel less lonely and taught me how teamwork created better bonds of friendship.

So, based on my own argument, I just wanted to express how much I disagree with any kind of regulation to videogames and that the problem comes from society itself. If you disrespect people from their earlier years, you'll create the monster, not the media. Media can influence, but not as much as your closer people will. Sometimes videogames can save lives. I work to make that happen.

PS: I'm truly sorry for the text wall and my bad english.

Heh, for some reason people like to blame entertainment for all of society's problems. Rock music, movies, and comic books have been blamed for all sorts of things as well. It doesn't mean any of it is true, but I don't see how you can stop people from using entertainment as a scapegoat.

Obama: "Hey there folks, see these kids behind me? The first step for the American buying public, namely adults and parents, is to stop buying M-rated video games for kids like this. As parents, handing over a M-rated game to your under-age child is like a silent approval of everything in that game. It's telling your kid that everything he or she is about to experience is fine by you."

"And if you see your child is starting to demonstrate signs of degrading mental health and a proclivity towards violence, it's probably best not to hand them violent material or means of any type until they are assessed by a health professional."

"We'll be conducting research into parents' familiarity with game ratings and content, to determine how much potentially adverse content and effects enter the home through adult assistance."

"We'll be expanding national and local mental health initiatives to assist parents and family members in identifying potential problems in at risk young people, and ensure they get the help they need before a situation becomes out of hand."

"We all need to take some responsibility for how our society consumes its media content, how we perceive the ideals of weapon ownership and use, and when to get people the help they need during the onset of mental disorder, before it's too late."

But if he actually said that, people would probably complain: "Obama just thinks we're all crazy and need to see a shrink! It's guns and bad make-believe stuff that turn people crazy!"

So we'll start with some research that will spin around in circles until a health professional says:
"Crazy people is crazy people, regardless of accessories around them. We need to identify, contain, and assist them -- not hide them and provide accessories and tools that encourage their disorder. Thanks."

To which a whole bunch of us will once again say, "No shit, Sherlock."

If this is the price we have to pay for stricter gun-control laws, then I am in favor of it.

Oh folks this is a minefield set up to curtail and rein in control the gaming industry (and other aspects of society) under the guise of being good stewards of the American people.

This whole circus we see going on is only about one thing; power. It is simple, who will have the power over what?! We need to get rid of the haze of feelings and concerns conveniently laid out there to muddle the issue and fundamentally analyze what each potential decision will do to our freedoms.

Its all about who has the power and as an Indie and an American I wish to keep my own power over decisions and maintain my rightful freedoms thank you. I am quite capable...

The NRA says fiction as the root cause of real gun violence. In order to negotiate with the NRA he has to take that accusation seriously. Hence a scientific study.

I would prefer some sort of gov incentive or subsidy to get past the economic barrier to more sophisticated NPCs and simulations of social dynamics. Game engines have sophisticated tools for world modelling but not character or social modelling. Such tools would be helpful outside of game design in areas like diplomacy and business (negotiation/marketing etc.).

It's a good point, "we dont benefit from ignorance"
Like Mike Weldon said above me. If this is the price for gun control I say let them study the effects on young minds.

The Issue is that ESRB already has taken the measure to keep violent games away from young kids, but every time I'm in Game Stop or any game retailer there is at least 2 mothers buying the hottest Army shooter or any games equal to, for their young child.

I'm curious to know if there is evidence in the slightest that the study does show effects on young minds what other measures can the industry take to ensure that kids cant get them? Parents can still just by pass this hurdle by just pretending to purchase it for themselves.

The game industry has done extensive research on violence time and time again, if they want to do it themselves, then we should give them the tools.

We either learn something or put this myth to rest.

my 2¢

You gotta hand it to the NRA. Completely dismissing themselves from any responsibility while trying to pin it on as many other scapegoats as possible. How about this for a study? Study how many people who have easy access to guns commits violent crimes compared to those who do not.

This is just more news that is tarnishing the video game industry. If we can't lock up the person who commits the violent act and put them on trial - then we have to put a video game or motion picture on trial. If we continue to blame objects for violent acts then we will get nowhere.

The NRA wants to blame the video game and movie industry for violent acts? In the case of Newtown, all they had to do was announce a reminder to gun owners to keep their own guns locked up in residences from individuals that may be emotionally unstable. Of course, gun safes or gun lockers, that's too much to ask for some gun owners - and even insulting.

We're trying to prevent gun violence? How about we try to prevent people from having psychotic breaks? Any emotionally unstable person doesn't need a gun to carry out a violent act - we all know that. Put more money towards mental health care, public awareness of mental health issues, and perhaps studying how mental illness combined with social isolation (isolation that brings one into their own dark world) can cause someone to commit a violent act?

The other unfortunate and chilling angle to this is that if an individual is hell-bent on carrying out a violent act - there is no stopping them. It's only now the media coverage of such acts has intensified, they do not go away and we can fold them up in a newspaper and forget about them. The internet and expansion of news media intensifies the coverage and now we have to deal with this. We're just now dealing with it by unfairly blaming violent fictional imagery instead of mental illness or just plain evil.

Video games, violent and otherwise, exist all over the world. School shootings occur primarily in the US.

I don't think a study is a bad idea, given the seriousness of the issue, but I think they are barking up the wrong tree. I would like to see more research done in the area of how constant access to online media is affecting our brains.

Don't kid yourselves. No one was violent before videogames. No gun deaths. No mass executions. No genocide. No wars. Nothing. Until videogames came along we were all peace loving beatniks. And these games turned us all into ticking timebombs.

They should spend that 10 million on bad parenting research ... there is a reason violent games are rated mature and there is already something called an ESRB. Mental retards that are OF AGE to buy these games are mental retards, nothing you can do about that!

Everyone thinks in terms of black and white. I think there probably are links to be made but they wouldn't equate to something simple enough to fit into a twitter post. People are afraid that any link would paint kids who play violent games as potential problems. I for one say bring it on. Let's see what the links are if any. Its time to stop being ignorant.

The real question to ask here is: How do I become a part of this 500 million payroll? I'd love to assist in research.

"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting." -Ernest Rutherford

Yes fast-paced, risky, and high competitive games make you burn adrenaline, but do they make you produce it more (apart for refilling what you've used up) to hyper-adrenaline level that you might have sudden, sub-stimulated adrenaline explosions?

Similarly risky engagements, success/fail states makes you *release* hormones and act *emotionally* in accordance to the situation. But that's not something external stuff do, it's something *we* do, in face of anything loss.

The way a game could shift the line at which we get "aggressive" (i.e. "emotional", which btw, has nothing to do with cold, suicidal, burned-out, emotionless, revengefully attention-seeking mass shootings, but seems to distract the focus from the subject very often) would be by pampering us in being *entitled to undeserved success* (well... most games nowadays do it).

Do playing games make your hypothalamus to grow? Does it make you produce excessive levels of somatotropin? Why don't all gamers are 2m tall or bodybuilders don't play it instead fo going to a doctor?

Sure, people shoot themselves because they're "aggressive", "violent"... A suicide is a product of deeper psychological and sociological issues. Otherwise all and every serial killer must be a product of video games, from 1888 and before.

We've already studied this extensively and every time they find that violent video games do not make killers.

I've seen videos of children playing more aggressively after they watched a violent cartoon show as opposed to a non-violent one, and a lot of people interpret a lot more from this than what it actually is and start to think that media is causing aggression, but when compared to other societies around the world, the evidence just doesn't hold up. For example, Japan has the same violent games that we do, but they don't have mass killings (they also don't have the guns).

These killers were mentally ill or were severely bullied in high school. Why aren't we mostly worried about the common threads?

It's mentally ill people with guns! That's the problem. Duh!!!

To me this seems a very strange debate, the world is imperfect, their will always be members of the human race that will want to commit violence upon people. And in a nation of so many people, when one person snaps, or brakes for whatever reason, everyone gets so surprised! it is to me statistically inevitable particularly in an age of endemic bullying.

Then add this to a nation that has the highest number of guns per capita, and the result is exactly what happened in Newtown a result seen too many times.

Violence is everywhere, the difference is that guns are not everywhere.

I think the games industry generally gets overly defensive when this stuff normally comes out and we have the "proof" to back up our claims. The NRA has a bunch of studies about how reducing access to guns in other countries actually resulted in an increase of violence especially gang related. I don't think it hurts to have the facts rechecked and I do think if there is the slightest chance that games do affect the behavior of kids it should be determined and we have a responsibility to take care of it. For all we know violent games may not make regular children more violent, but they may make mentally-ill children more violent. Or extended periods of play such that haven't been covered in studies may start to have an effect on some individuals with excess stress in their lives be it from bullying or something else. We just don't know and these things should be checked out.

America has a seriously gun influenced culture so much so that this culture has actually infected the style of games. Now the "big guns" in gaming are CoD, Halo, Battle Field, Home Front, games that promote gun violence. A lot of these these games also promote racial stereotyping and propaganda and they further influence the gun culture of the country. And it's this culture that causes guns to be so readily available and the super high gun related death toll that is typically seen in the states. It's not spawned from gaming but it has imprinted itself on the industry which in turn reinforces it.

I'm not saying violent games typically cause people to be more violent. I love fighting games and I study martial arts but I've been in 1 fight in the 27 years of my life. But for all we know there is some sad soul somewhere who has been bullied or abused, hates his life, and uses violent games as an escape. When pushed to the brink he might emulate what he's most familiar with which is this violence. These are all unanswered questions and being a responsible industry isn't it our job to check all the facts and make sure we only provide positive effects to our consumers, specifically those who are children?

Lastly, I watched a video about some of the irresponsibility of the gaming industry. We are so quick to blame parents about what games they buy their kids. At the same type we have characters from mature extremely violent games featuring in kids games. Kratos in little big planet, Solid Snake in Super Smash Bros. That's cross marketing and is wrong. It's the same thing the alcohol industry did when they marketed alco-pops which were specifically appealing to kids and promoted underage drinking. We do have to kick ourselves up the ass and even if we're not responsible for the violence that is present in the American culture (which I'm sure we're not) we should still do our best to help since games are such a wide spread and accessible medium.

A lot of commenters seem to say: "Well, nobody could find a connection between games and violence in the past, so let's stop research". The argument then goes: nobody found a connection (which is good for us, because we make games), Obama wants to do more research, so Obama wants to continue research until he finds a connection.

The argument of course can easily be turned around: in the past the game industry was lucky, because nobody found a connection between games and violence. The game industry likes this result and therefore wants to stop research. Probably they fear that there is a connection.

Just because nobody ever found magnetic monopoles doesn't mean we stop looking. In science you constantly look for evidence which could falsify theories. This is exactly what the games industry should do: support more studies, so that we know exactly what kind of connection or influence there possibly is.

I think it's great that the government of the US ARE doing something about the gun violence their citizens are facing.

However, the "Media Council of Sweden's Government" made an extensive report in 2011, putting together ALL international research there is about the (assumed) link between video games, violence and aggression.

They found out that there is now link between playing violent video games and acting violently in real life, BUT people who played a lot of violent games seemed to have issues with aggressive behavior when playing. However, they pointed out it's very hard to conclude anything for that since the research done had plenty of different definition for "aggressive behavior".

The report can be found here (in Swedish): http://www.statensmedierad.se/Publikationer/Produkter/Valdsamma-datorspel-och-ag
gression/

After reading this article, specifically this part "We concur with President Obama's call today for all Americans to do their part, and agree with the report's conclusion that the entertainment and video game industries have a responsibility to give parents tools and choices about the movies and programs their children watch and the games their children play," said the organization in its statement." I couldn't help, but commenting. I understand that the ESRB rating system isn't technically a law, i.e. it is up to the specific store if they wish to require id for M rated games, etc. However, nearly all stores do, not to mention that almost all game consoles nowadays have built in parental controls, and come with instructions on how to set them up. "They" say that we as gamers/game companies need to provide parents with tools, to give them the options to disallow their children the ability to play violent video game. We are doing just that, it isn't our fault that the parents don't choose to implement them, or choose to ignore the rating system.

My question is did the killer play violent videogames? I've not seen this information and I think that it should have some relevance.

One way to ensure that teens and kids don't get their parents to buy M rated games for them would be to add a picture of a naked woman next to the M rating. I can guarantee that parents won't buy these games for their children anymore. We used to say "make love not war" but now it seems to be "make war, not love".

Here are my initial thoughts: This could either help or hurt the game industry. In science you can not 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. So even after millions of dollars spent the government could only show more support for violence or decreased violence using video games- but they could not use that to mandate the inhibition of violent video game sales or the research would be biased from the beginning.All the government can do is add more to the library of peer reviewed literature or make a 60 second psa about how violent video games effect a kid's brains but that is it- if they truly intend to intend to stay scientific.

Extra research on video game violence would be a waste of government spending and tax payer money. I like how Obama wants to figure out why the U.S. is the murder capital of the world(I want to know why too) and I think the fact that he is doing at least something to get to the bottom of it shows great leadership but practically the research would not really help the society.

@Jeferson Soler- I agree. That is why I like how Obama is at least addressing the problem unlike the previous presidents.

It amazes me that while folks are trying to find solutions to prevent babies from being mass murdered others only think of a few dollars coming out of their pockets. I wonder if the parents from sandy hook are thinking about money right now. That’s all anyone cares about these days…. Money, money, money, and more money. It’s like babies whining over binkies. It’s sad and pathetic. It’s that kind of individual selfishness that’s most likely caused the decline of our economy and culture in the first place. Just sit back and let our president do his Job. At least he’s trying to fix the problem, what have you done? If you don’t like it… VOTE!

America has one of the best governments in the world. All of our freedoms, luxuries and Securities are because of Democracy and believe it or not, Taxes. If you want to live in a country with small government and no taxes, move to Afghanistan, Yemen, Haiti, Somalia or somewhere in the Ivory coast. I’m sure you’d be more comfortable there since they have the type of government that meets your requirements PERFECTLY. In the mean time, I’ll be here in the US paying my taxes, happy with a roof over my head, coffee in my cup, a cozy job making video games, and supporting our proactive President!

this is why i fucking hate capitalism. what is wrong with the author such that THAT is the title of this article?

why must industries ALWAYS react with their eyes incapable of glaring at their own goddamn bottom line? why thisever present and unrelenting DEFENSIVENESS?

WHY NOT IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE?

why must we be the same ignorance mongering agents that the tobacco industry was and the NRA is?

government and academic studies CANNOT HIDE THEIR WORK PRODUCT. if there is BIAS, if there are methodological FLAWS, they will be available to be exposed.

goddammit, LET THEM STUDY IT. jesus christ.

Mandating governmental (or industry) backed studies would bias the results; though they may claim otherwise. Such studies need to be conducted by non-governmental, non-industry organizations which have no ulterior motives or backers skewing the process.

Obama's methods for accomplishing his intended goal, in this case, is equivalent to a strawman argument. Nothing will be solved by beating around the bush using biased methods.

http://www.grandtheftchildhood.com/GTC/Excerpts/Entries/2008/1/28_The_video_game
s_and_violence_Study.html

Not to mention he's completely ignoring previous studies on the matter... sponsored by Harvard, no less!

I like the news article title ' Here we go again '..

Like the writer knows the game industry is hiding a dirty little secret.

It shouldn't say ' Here we go again' it should say ' Why has it taken this long '...

Anyone who has kids, knows if they play a violent video game, the whole week your dealing with more fights at school, more aggression.

Anyone who types ' here we go again ' is a fool who either does not have children, does not 'care' about children, or is very 'detached' from observing their children's behavior.