Quote Originally Posted by OKCCrime View Post
The individuals most at risk (and the topic of discussion in the thread) are children. Adults may be able to better separate in-game learning, and real-world learning because most adults try and logically think through their actions in advance. Children tend to just act and those actions are based on their past experiences. It is not unreasonable to believe that past actions learned in a video game would influence real world behaviors, especially for younger children. As you argue, the evidence is flawed, but why take the risk when there are so many non-violent entrainment options for children?
Why take the risk of teaching a kid how to hunt when he might feel the thrill of killing a living animal and go on a murderous rampage later in life? Why not lock away all the guns? Why take the risk of teaching a kid how to swim or boat or canoe when he runs such a greater risk of drowning when out on the water? Why take the risk of letting a kid ride a bike or a skateboard when their risk factor of injury and death is so much greater, why not keep those things away from them? Why take the risk of letting a kid play physical contact sports when their aggressiveness might increase and the risk of them breaking their back or otherwise injuring themselves increases probably by double?

My point is that life is one big set of risks. Some handle it better than others. Some are dumb and take things more to the extreme than others. It's all one big series of trade-offs. With each risk there is some reward of some kind, even with video games. How about we all take the article and topic for what it is and we all control all of our own kids the way that works best for us and call everything good.