A ban on common-sense, not violence

Last night the internet was ablaze with chatter following Target’s decision to remove all copies of Grand Theft Auto V from their shelves. The decision came in-light of a recent change.org petition stating that the game “encourages players to commit sexual violence and kill women”.

While there were some who came out in defense of the ban, the majority of the comments made online swayed the other way. Points were raised that it’s not just females, but mostly male characters who are killed in games like these and questions were asked why Target hadn’t decided to enforce such a ban 12 months ago when GTA V originally launched on the last-generation consoles.

Now I won’t deny, comments made that Target are well within their rights to decide which products they do or don’t stock are completely correct. By the same token, those people who suggested that Target (and now K-Mart) is a family-friendly store and removing this game from sale would be in-line with their business strategy are also correct.

The thing is though, all these for and against points are irrelevant. You see, the decision to ban Grand Theft Auto V for promoting sexual violence and murder towards women sets a precedent for a serious problem that I don’t feel is getting enough attention over the past 24 hours.

Since the very first video game to feature violence, there have been people on one side of the fence who have suggested that games do cause violence. At the same time, there have been people on the other side who have tried to suggest the opposite. As you’d expect, the very same argument started to take place immediately once Target announced their decision, but this isn’t the problem I’m talking about.

The problem I’m referring to here is that now we’re setting a significant example to suggest that video games do cause violence, and this is a dangerous slope that we’re now embarking on.

The main point behind the idea that “games cause violence” has always centered around the fact that games are interactive. Unlike music and films which you simply listen to or watch, the very act of pressing a button or moving a stick, as seemingly trivial as you or I might find it, is ‘interactive’ enough that violence in a game could somehow leak out into a player’s real-world actions. On the contrary, the main rebuttal against the idea that games cause violence has been that games are not reality, and that people should be able to distinguish between what’s right and what’s wrong.

Whenever I’ve engaged in a discussion on the matter, as you’d possibly expect, I’ve always sided with the latter point of view. As a gamer of over 15 years and without any real-world criminal charges or convictions, I’ve always viewed myself as an example that games don’t cause violence. In the same token, I’ve considered each one of my friends and fellow gamers as examples too. We’ve all played Grand Theft Auto but none of us have killed a living person. We’ve never sexually assaulted a woman (or male) for that matter either.

My opinion has always been that the onus is on someone’s parents or caretakers to teach them right from wrong. That murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong and that assault is wrong. What this petition has suggested, and what Target has essentially promoted, is that this isn’t the case. They’re suggesting that all this is irrelevant, that games like GTA V would suggest it’s OK for someone to rape or murder a women. If GTA V was at risk of doing any of these things, the potential for damage by this petition is much worse.

By not just electing to keep the games behind a closed counter or by requiring ID to purchase it, by Target removing the game from its shelves, they’re agreeing that GTA V promotes violence. By Target removing the game from its shelves, they’re suggesting that people can’t be responsible for their own actions. By Target removing the game from its shelves, they’re suggesting that people haven’t been taught right from wrong, or that people can’t be taught right from wrong. This is the real problem.

The decision to ban overly violent games before Australia had an R18+ rating and now the decision by Target and K-Mart to remove these games (read: games) from their shelves entirely, has essentially shifted the responsibility from parents and caretakers to raise their own children correctly. Whenever the next teenager (who shouldn’t even have a copy of the game to begin with) or adult assault or murder another person, we’ve now agreed that it’s OK to place blame on a game rather than ask questions as to their upbringing, their mental state or the current living condition/situation.

We’ve essentially agreed to place blame on a scapegoat rather than investigate the true reason behind the criminal actions of an individual. Someone might play GTA V and kill someone in real-life immediately after, but the question I’d ask, and the one I’d assume anyone with even half a brain cell would ask too, is “why?” Why would someone play a video game and think it’s appropriate to re-create that behavior in the real-world? The fact all gamers across the world aren’t killing and raping people daily should be enough of a case to suggest such a link between games and violence is absurd, but not anymore.

Anyone with even a shred of intelligence should read the news surrounding this situation and protest in disgust. It doesn’t matter if you already have the game or if you never shop at Target to begin with. All that is irrelevant. It’s the fact a company has come out and suggested that there is a link between real-world violence and video game violence. This is the real problem and this is the real reason we should be frustrated.