1

Regulation of Video Games

As technology has advanced, we have been able to create more and more realistic virtual
realities through video games. This is a wonderful achievement, but some would argue that there
are also serious harms that come from these virtual realities. They argue that these games, now
able to depict gruesome violence simply for the customers pleasure, inspire citizens to reenact
their feats of bloody rampage in the real world, an atrocious and horrifying thought. Because of
this, there are many that believe that video games, especially the aforementioned violent ones,
need to be regulated by the government with more severe restrictions.
The case that many make for regulating video games more aggressively is fairly
straightforward: violent video games create violent people. Its not that the video games make a
person desire to kill others for joy, but rather that they desensitize [one] to the real-life effects of
violence.1 This is truly a frightening idea. Many people have accredited various public
shootings to video games such as the Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty series. One case even
gives a direct connection between violence and video games; a David Thompson claim[ed] that
a previous version of Grand Theft Auto inspired him to kill three police officers when he was
only 16. Thompson reportedly told police life is a video game. You've got to die sometime,
before he opened fire.2 It is cases like these that really push the idea that violent video games
desensitize its players to the real-world consequences. Surely the government has the right to and
should take a more aggressive stance towards the regulation of such video games, right? Some
would beg to differ.
Just as with any heated debate, there is always a strong counter-argument to oppose the
first. Many people most definitely do not agree that violent video games incite violence within
their gamers. One of these individuals even points out in his article that theres little evidence of

2
a link between video games and aggressive youth. While the video game industry was exploding
between 1994 and 2000, juvenile (ages 15-17) violent crime arrests dropped by 44 percent and
young adult (ages 18-24) violent crime arrests dropped by 24 percent, according to the U.S.
Department of Justice.3 With no concrete link between these violent video games and acts of
violence, does the government still have the right to regulate? Additionally, some would argue
that it is not the governments responsibility to decide what children are able to experience, but
their parents. And perhaps more interesting, others against the regulation of video games have
declared that government regulation would be censorship, violating the First Amendment. For
these reasons, the debate continues.
Both sides of this argument have very strong points. Though the argument against video
game regulation seems compelling, does that make up for the few instances in which video
games have been directly associated with violent acts? Would the regulation of video games be
worth it to possibly save the lives lost in those few instances? From a utilitarianism perspective,
Id say yes. From a hedonistic perspective, Id say it depends. A utilitarianism would seek the
path to the greatest fortune for everyone overall, so the regulation of these video games would be
perfectly justified. However, I believe its a bit more complicated from a hedonistic standpoint.
An individual, lets call him Paul, who committed mass murder and enjoyed it may be justified
from a hedonistic perspective. Hedonism mainly argues against this by establishing that the long
term displeasure from fear and anxiety would outweigh the temporary joy from murder.
However, if we can take my findings from before as completely true, video games would have
desensitized Paul so that he does not fear death. Rather, he embraces it. Taken to the extreme,
Paul would probably have a mindset similar to that of Mr. David Thompson, believing that
you've got to die sometime.2 In contrast, if Paul is not entirely desensitized to his

3
consequences, then of course this argument does not hold and by hedonistic outlines, Paul would
be wrongfully committing murder. The main difference between utilitarianism and hedonism is
that utilitarianism places value in societys overall well-being while hedonism mainly places
value in a sole individuals well-being.
My personal opinion on this issue is that the government should not regulate video
games. I strongly agree with the notion that video game regulation should be a task for parents,
not for the government. I feel that parents have the ability to determine how influential video
games are in their childrens lives as most of the time children only rely on video games when
they have no one else motivating them to do a different activity. Personally, I grew up playing
video games for the majority of my youth. I now think back and realize that it wasnt that I loved
video games, its just that with my parents too busy to take the time to play with me and too
worried to let me go out of the house unsupervised, I had no one to play with. I feel as though
much of the youth stuck on video games is in or has been in a similar situation. I am not
condemning parents for allowing their children to play video games, but instead I encourage the
parents just to be mindful of the types of video games that they let their kids play. I feel like most
of the time parents dont regulate their childrens video games simply because they have no idea
how vulgar and gruesome some of them are, which goes back to the issue of parent involvement.
If parents step up and become more involved, there is no way video games can become
influential to the point of inspiring mass murder.
1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/us/politics/makers-of-violent-video-games-marshalsupport-to-fend-off-regulation.html?_r=0
2: http://www.out-law.com/page-5810
3: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/regulating-video-games-parents-or-uncle-sam