With our 60th inauguration of an American president now complete, the quadrennial political honeymoon period in American politics is underway. As major party players strain to hear— possibly even accept— the position of the other side, a glimmer of hope for mutual resolution exists on issues ranging from immigration to personal rights & freedoms to the economy.

But how about the social effects of violent video gaming, which isn’t likely to land on any political pundit’s radar these next four years, much less a list of legislative bills to be heard by the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the public realm, it’s “case closed,” and even if it weren’t, the two sides are simply too far apart on the question of gaming-inspired violence.

But should it be? And are they really?

During the 25-plus years that have elapsed since the watershed mass violence incident known as the Columbine massacre, President Trump is the latest in a long line of high-ranking public officials who’ve brought the potentially corrupting influence of violent video gaming on children into the public space:

In it’s earliest appearance, objections about the morals within and practice of violent gaming activity was essentially a continuing concern around TV violence in general …..


raised questions about, issued public statements on, or convened committees/advanced bills in efforts to counteract the

Names: Jay Rockefeller, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, Lt Governor of Texas (recent), Vince DiPiazza—City Manager of Uvalde, TX. (Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick of Texas)

Look for some in the report— Connecticut maybe— in the Using the First Amendment as a Shield at Any Cost— two PhD.s at the University of Florida on the blocking of any and all regulation of gaming.

With a list as politically cross-cutting as that, one might think progress would come easy, and with little political capital used in the process.

But the consensus opinion of leading proponents of “no causal link” persists, and has been coursing through the media pipes as an unexamined but assumed & staunchly defended position by everyone from leading media moguls to anyone interested in the topic who believe they are acting on good authority.

As stated elsewhere, the requirement for video gaming to be unquestionably determined ‘the causal link’ behind violence is both unrealistic and unachievable.

”Everything has multiple causal strands,” as the social thinker Jonathan Haidt once observed.

In reality, the ability to place common sense restrictions on gaming has been a non-starter, due to the pushback, testimony and position papers of groups like the ESA (Entertainment Software Association).

“The regulatory and legislative process magnifies the voice of corporate interests as it weakens the voice of advocates and parents who may potentially be affected by the products of the system.”

(From A Shield to Legitimize Virtually Any Content, by Jennifer Proffitt, Phd. and Margot Susca, Phd.)