freedom and reason

Virginia’s lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Bishop E.W. Jackson has made some claims about race and abortion and Margaret Sanger that have a lot of liberals painting the man crazy. Is there truth behind what he said about racism and family planning?

In 1990, the rate of black women having abortion was 63.9 per 100,000 compared to 21.5 per 100,000 for white women. And while it is true that the rate for black women had fallen to 48.2 per 100,000 by 2007, it fell even faster for white women (13.8 per 100,000) during this period. This means that the black rate of abortion three-and-a-half times the white rate. 

Margaret Sanger believed in black racial inferiority. She believed that poverty was the result of uncontrolled fertility. She was a eugenicist. The intersection of these commitments is reflected in aggressive efforts to lower fertility among those with darker skin. Her own words condemn her. To provide a sample, Sanger was concerned that the black community might become suspicious of her “Negro Project,” which was aimed at reducing fertility in the black community. She actively worked to recruit black ministers to her cause because, in her words, “we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” 

I support contraception and abortion. In fact, I don’t think there should be any age, trimester, or any other restrictions on abortion, including parental notification. Women of any age should be able to obtain contraception and have an abortion for any reason or no reason at all and the state ought to pay for it as it and it must be entirely voluntary. But my support for reproductive rights has nothing to do with Margaret Sanger’s beliefs and motives, and on this score, Jackson is more right than wrong.

I am so very tired of this condescending sidestepping of a question: “Why does God allow terrible things to happen?” “Andy that question requires an in-depth philosophical-theological treatment and anything short of that is a cheap shot at religion.” Actually, there is no deep philosophical-theological reason for why God allows terrible things to happen. This may well be the easiest question to answer.

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose I am a Christian. As a Christian I am confronted with this problem: either God kills people with tornadoes or He stands by and watches tornadoes kill people, which, since he is an all-knowing and all-powerful god, is the same thing. God knows very well how terrible it is for seven children to drown in the basement of a school hit by a tornado. Yet he lets them drown. Or he sent a tornado to drown them. I know from my Bible that he caused a flood that killed nearly every living thing on the planet, so I can’t put it past him that he would drown seven children He’s done it before.

He say he loves us – so much so that he sacrificed his own son. Yet he kills some of us and leaves the rest of us with broken hearts. Is it reasonable for me to love a being who kills my children and breaks my heart? Is such a being really worthy of my devotion? Either God is a cruel and terrible god who hates children and breaks hearts and is therefore unworthy of my devotion or there is no god and tornadoes are a natural weather phenomenon and we should build stronger school buildings in the short term and reverse climate change in the long term.

God is like an abusive spouse who claims to love me yet hurts me. Either he must love me and protect me or he must hate me and hurt me. Fortunately, unlike an abusive spouse, God is not real. So His advocates may tell me that I always fall short of His glory, but he cannot really hurt me if I leave Him.

Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: the ruling class created Alex Jones to discredit any serious questioning of its rule and to confuse the masses. In other words, he is part of an organized counterinsurgency operation. That would make a lot of sense. The production value of his programs is quite high for somebody who not only dwells on the lunatic fringe of political discourse, but who is rather unremarkable. The only things impressive about the man is that he is apparently incapable of suffering embarrassment and can blow a gasket without stroking out.

When I watch Jones, I feel that I am seeing the fruit of a significant investment made in manufacturing notorious a mediocre demagogue who can simultaneously (1) marginalize criticism of power by making it categorically appear conspiratorial—indeed, making conspiracy theorizing itself a suspect thing—and (2) keep alive the reactionary element in capitalist society and (3) never break much beyond the margins of his own small but committed audience (he presents no real danger). Hell, I run the risk of marginalizing myself by even suggesting that Jones and his programming is staged. That’s conspiratorial thinking! But think about it, if only as an exercise: Here is a phenomenon that functions to make all radical analyses of economic and political power look suspect. A little too convenient, right?

However he comes to us, Alex Jones gets in my way. The shadow of his project affects my teaching. I spend too much time in my office and in hallways after class explaining the difference between Jones and serious analysis of institutions and power. When I talk about corporate control and propaganda, government and business surveillance, CIA black sites and psychological operations, coups and assassinations, and the myriad of other things the powerful do to maintain and expand their grip over our minds and lives in order to stuff full their bank accounts, I draw more than an occasional look of bemusement.

Students come up to me after class and recommend Alex Jones and other so-called “conspiracists” to me as if I am part of the crowd. “Have you seen Loose Change?” “You should really check out the documentary Zeitgeist.” “What do you think about the way the Twin Towers collapsed? Do you think it was a false flag operation?” When I show legitimate documentaries in class, such as The Corporation and Manufacturing Consent, I have to preface the viewings by explaining that the company that produced the films, Zeitgeist, is not associated with the faux-documentary Zeitgeist. If I don’t, then some students openly assume the association, which has the effect of lumping me and the documentaries with the right wing lunatic faux-libertarian fringe.

All this endears me to some and alienates others, neither of which is a desirable outcome. It’s amazing how many of my students over the years have watched these faux-documentaries and, more frighteningly, how the “ truths” these projects reveal have “changed their lives.” Tragically, these students tend to tilt left. The other effect is to cause students to dismiss serious critical thinking, thinking it “conspiracism.” It’s the latter group that is most difficult to reach (I can usually show the former why Jones is a crackpot). Most students don’t have an opinion either way, but the tragedy here is that they are politically disinterested.

Democracy, or “rule of the people,” obviously cannot mean oligarchy, i.e., “rule of the few,” or majoritarianism, i.e., “tyranny of the majority.” A democracy is a system in which all of the people participate in making decisions concerning those things that affect them. Such an arrangement necessarily includes recognizing individual rights. Recognizing individual rights means that a decision that is made by the people cannot impose upon individuals undue burdens or substantial harm.

But it means more than this. There are two kinds of rights. The first is that class of rights that protects individuals from the arbitrary and manifestly harmful imposition of practices of others. For example, if a capitalist firm releases harmful toxins into the atmosphere, then that firm is violating my right to be free from exposure to harmful substances. The second class of rights guarantee individual access to those resources and institutions that permit the full development of the self. For example, in order to have an equal possibility of living life in the manner we choose, we must have free access to nutritious food, clean water, decent housing, safe neighborhoods, educational institutions, health care, and opportunities for leisure. 

Both kinds of rights are equally important. However, the kinds have been counterposed in history. The first has historically been associated with liberalism (of which modern conservatism is a subspecies). The second is historically associated with socialism. There is but one thing that keeps these rights in opposition (granting limited compromise): private control over capital. Crucially, there is no intrinsic reason why socialism excludes the first class of rights. Socialism permits recognition of the first class of rights as essential to any functioning democratic order. However, economic liberalism is incompatible with the second class of rights because it rests on the artificial “right” of private property, a supposed right with no anthropological necessity. Private property is in contradiction to the right for free full development of persons. Indeed, liberalism cannot realize its own class of rights because the “right” to private property makes materially impossible the full realization of the right to be free from the arbitrary and manifestly harmful imposition of practices of others, as illustrated in the example provided above. 

Realizing democratic ends, as well as the freedoms claimed by liberals, requires that the liberal class of rights by incorporated into socialism by abolishing private capital. This is the necessary foundation for real democracy in practice.

Listening to Tom Ashbrook’s program on abortion tonight was a truly frustrating experience. I was shaking my head the whole time. When it comes to the public abortion debate, the actual issue – and there is really is only one issue – never comes up. It’s as if there is a conspiracy of silence. Is all the bullshit engineered to keep this debate going for some political use?

First, Ashbrook wanted to keep after the anti-abortion speakers on the question of incest and rape. But how can the manner in which the child is conceived have anything to do with an argument that holds fast to the idea that the fetus is a life that should not be taken? The fetus is an innocent life. You can’t punish the fetus for the crimes of the father. The pro-abortion side needs to understand that anti-abortion activists hold a consistent position here and, while you can shame many of them into rhetorically allowing for exceptions, the real issue is whether there should be restrictions on abortion at all. The argument isn’t about the fetus. It’s about the freedom of women to choose how their bodies will be used (if used at all). The emotional impact or rape and incest is not a substitute for reason.

Second, these arguments about abortion causing a reduction in crime or demanding that conservatives pony up the money to feed, clothe, house, doctor all the unwanted children, and so forth, are all irrelevant points. The question of whether it is right or wrong for the state to force women to have babies (or not to have babies) is the only issue. It is a matter of fundamental individual right – the most important right of them all. You can’t determine whether we should or shouldn’t have rights on the grounds that we will have higher crime rates or too many people and so forth. These arguments shouldn’t be dignified in a debate on the question of reproductive freedom.

Third, there is no such thing as “states rights.” Goddammit can you finally get this through your skulls? States don’t have rights. Persons have rights (you know, persons like women?). It is a tyrannical notion to suppose that the state has rights over us. States have powers. And only when the state’s power rests on the consent of the government can state actors claim authority (as Max Weber defines it: legitimate power). Otherwise, we do not live in a free state. So it is to misspeak to say that a state has a right to determine what happens to a fetus. It may claim the power to do so, but it has no “right” to do so. 

Fourth, the viability standard is an impossible and ridiculous standard. In practice, viability can only be theoretical. The idea behind viability is that there is a point when the fetus can live outside the body. Does this mean that for the woman who no longer wants to be pregnant the state will remove the fetus from the womb at the moment of viability in order to incubate the fetus artificially (or maybe transplant it into another womb)? My god, such a situation wouldn’t be simply tyranny but a nightmare. How could anybody claim to live in a free and morally decent society where women were forced to submit to a surgical procedures they did not consent to. Either way, the state commandeers the woman’s body for its interests – or, more accurately, the interests of those who seek to control reproduction – over against the interests of the woman in preserving her right to personal autonomy. This is the most naked form of tyranny. It is wicked notion. The fetus is viable when it is expelled from the womb. At that point the state can intervene, but not before.

Fifth, the argument that the right to life is more important than the right to privacy doesn’t even pass the smell test. Hypocrites. Do any of you really believe that conservatives would allow you or me to come into their home and eat their food or use their toilet without permission unmolested? Really? They would shoot us in the face. But my right to life is more important than their right to be secure in their private castles, no? To shoot me would be to violate my right to life, the most important thing in all the world, no? Are you kidding? I’m with conservatives on this one: your right to life ends where my freedom to be secure in my house ends. If you live it is only because I believed there was a way to get you out of my house without killing you first.

The right to life is not absolute. Almost everybody agrees there is no absolute right to life. We take life in self defense. We take a life to throw off tyranny. Nobody has an obligation to be slave and the fact that the slave masters is a person gives him no absolute right to live. When all is said and done there is only one real motivation for advocating for the power of states to control the womb: the submission of women. It’s okay. You don’t actually have to be aware of the real motivation behind your desires, so you needn’t be defensive. Your motive is revealed by the nature of the intended target. This isn’t really a debate. It’s a self-evident truth. If a woman does not have the right to her own body, she is a slave.

The question of the permissibility of abortion is not about the status fetus but the right of a woman (or any person) to determine what purposes her body is used for, presuming she is not a slave (and if she it, she must be liberated). Once the fetus has been expelled from the body and becomes an infant, then the state can take control of the infant’s life. Taking care of the infant no longer involves commandeering the woman’s body by the state, so there is no moral objection. You can’t force a person who has given birth to take care of the infant, just as you can’t force a person who is pregnant to take care of the fetus. The difference is that only in the former can the state act to preserve the life without oppressing the woman. Personal autonomy is the first right – every person must be free from oppression. Life can be and often is sacrificed to preserve this right. If a woman cannot determine how her body is used, she is not free. It’s that basic.

I’m a criminologist with a bit of understanding of crime scene investigation, as well as what makes shooters tick. But, really, you don’t need to have these qualifications to put together a reasonably accurate account of the Sandy Hook massacre. You just need to listen to what the police, the medical examiner’s office, and other authorities are telling reporters. A knowledge of firearms helps, of course.

Adam Lanza pictured in a photograph from 2005 in Newtown, Connecticut

One of the ironies of this event is that right wingers would rather trust hasty reporting by the liberal media in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, in particular the December 15 Today show coverage (in which numerous claims were made that turned out to be completely wrong), than believe the experts and authorities investigating the event.

Sandy Hook is not part of a conspiracy to disarm the populace. Here’s what really happened: A troubled young man living in a climate of gun enthusiasm in a dysfunctional house full of high powered and assorted weaponry went to an elementary school with four of those weapons, took three inside with him, and proceeded to murder 26 children, teachers, and administrators.

The guns used in this crime were legally purchased. His mother taught him how to use a firearm and took him to the firing range to practice. He was trained and willing to kill.

The only way this particular tragedy could possibly have been prevented is if any household with the presence of one or more diagnosed mentally ill persons were barred from owning firearms (which, if you know anything about the prevalence of mental illness would disarm a lot of households).

Note July 3, 2024: I no longer agree with banning military-style assault weapons.

The police have confirmed my identification of the weapons used in the killing. To be sure, I have an advantage in this sort of thing; I’m a criminologist with a bit of understanding of crime scene investigation, as well as what makes shooters like this tick. But, really, you don’t need to have these qualifications to put together a reasonably accurate account of the Sandy Hook massacre. You just need to listen to what the police, the medical examiner’s office, and other authorities are telling reporters. A knowledge of firearms helps. And a mind not clouded by right wing paranoid delusion.

One of the ironies of this event is that right wingers would rather trust hasty reporting by the “liberal” news media in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, in particular the December 15 Today show coverage, in which numerous claims were made that turned out to be completely wrong, than believe the experts and authorities who are investigating the event.

Sandy Hook is not part of a conspiracy to disarm the populace. Here’s what really happened: A troubled young man living in a climate of gun enthusiasm in a house full of high powered and assorted weaponry went to an elementary school with four of those weapons, took three inside with him, and proceeded to murder 26 children, teachers, and administrators. The guns used in this crime were legally purchased. His mother taught him how to use a firearm and took him to the firing range to practice. He was trained and willing to kill. This is the long term problem we face in the United States: a culture supportive of gun violence.

The only way this particular tragedy could possibly have been prevented is if military-style assault rifles and high-capacity semiautomatic handguns and magazines were not publicly available, the number of guns allowed per household was sharply restricted, and any household with the presence of one or more diagnosed mentally ill persons was barred from owning firearms (which, if you know anything about the prevalence of mental illness would disarm a lot of households). Only the gun control measures listed would cover everybody (since most shooters are not mentally ill) and not involve further stigmatization.

People seem to have forgotten why the Constitution was written. It was in large measure to form a strong national government to put down insurrections and rebellions that were threatening the nation under the Articles of Confederation.

Those who defend the Second Amendment most vociferously reject the premise on which the Second Amendment rests.

Recall the Second Amendment ratified by the states and certified by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Who regulates the militia? Government. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

How can the Second Amendment protect the right of insurrection when it specifically refers to the right of citizens in the context of a well-regulated militia to put down insurrections?

The Second Amendment is not about arming citizens to overthrow the government. This claim, which we hear all the time, is patently absurd. No republic sets itself up for violent overthrow. That’s why it is illegal to try to overthrow the government. Trying to overthrow the government is treason, arguably the most serious crime a man or group of men can perpetrate.

Think about it. Why would the government recognize a right to engage in illegal activity? It wouldn’t. Surely if it meant to it would not leave such a right so elusive!

The Second Amendment specifically refers to the context of a “well regulated militia” which, in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, exists “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It makes no sense to believe that the framers of the US republican would organize militias to defend against insurrection and simultaneously arm citizens to rebel against the Republic.

James Madison was many things, but stupid wasn’t among them. When he proposed what became the Second Amendment, he introduced the matter this way: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.”

The intent of his amendment is clear. States need a military to defend their government. However, standing armies are a threat to liberty. Therefore the people will be at the ready for the purposes outlined in the Constitution. This militia will be well regulated and comprised of persons trained to use arms for the defense of a free state.

Whether this makes sense to you or not, it is nonetheless the plain meaning of the text in every single rendering. It was clear to those who voted for it. In fact, the only debate the House and Senate had over this was a conscientious objectors clause that was struck from the final version. The idea there was that persons could opt out of the militia for religious reasons or other reasons of conscience.

It’s true that the Second Amendment is not about self-defense or hunting. Use of a firearm for self-defense is part of the larger right to self-defense, which is so fundamental as to be assumed under common law. Nobody thought you needed an amendment to protect such a fundamental right. Moreover, the use of firearms in hunting is simply using an effective tool in acquiring food. That was such a normal thing when the Constitution was written that nobody thought you would need to secure that right, either.

The Second Amendment has one purpose: assure the states that the people have a right to defend their interests against insurrection and invasion. When you don’t have a standing army, then your male population becomes an army at the ready.

One wonders why conservatives don’t call for the banning of violent sports, such as boxing. Here the aim is to actually hurt people and the result is that people actually get hurt.

Do forms of organized violence as socially-accepted spectator phenomena beget other forms of violence? Conservatives don’t think so. We are told that sports build character. The athlete – the football player, the hockey player, the boxer, the wrestler – is idolized.

If violent sports are unlikely to beget real world violence, then it’s a greater stretch to suppose violent movies do.

All these things – violent movies, music, sports – at best represent the sublimation of the frustration endemic to a modern capitalist life. Rather than translate that frustration into real world violence, workers discharge their frustrations vicariously through fictional or organized violence. That the forms catharsis takes are ever more intense is a reflection of the ever growing alienation capitalism represents to the social being.

If this interpretation works at all, we must avoid attributing the phenomena to the agency of the working class. Proletarians do not control the means of production; they do not have the power to produce these images. Fictional and organized violence reflect corporate desire to channel and capitalize on alienation and frustration.

Real proletarian violence has two directions and both are threats to the interests of the capitalist class. The first is interpersonal violence. Too much disrupts social order and exposes the ideology that capitalism is a peaceful and harmonious social system. The second is revolutionary violence. For obvious reasons this is to be especially feared.

Granting a few exceptions, violent movies and especially television programming, while providing an outlet for the energy that might otherwise fuel undesirable types of violence, reinforce attitudes supportive of authoritarian and hierarchical social ordering. The most dramatic recent example of this is The Dark Knight Rises.

The exceptions – V for Vendetta, for example – also function as catharsis: individuals can have their rebellion without making one.

First off, there are no such things as “violent video games.” That construction is either a propaganda term or an instance of linguistic shorthand (and sloppiness). There are video games that depict or simulate violence, or VGSVs. We can also identify art, literature, photography, and film that depict or simulate violence. Depictions of and simulated violence are not violence. Violence is behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. The surest way to undermine freedom of expression and speech is to forget the difference between depictions of violence and violence itself or to pretend that the difference is insignificant.

It’s not VGSVs that inspire gun violence. True, research finds that levels of aggression are raised among college students playing VGSVs. (Research also shows that video games reduce motivation to act.) However, if VGSV-induced aggression were a source of gun violence, then rates of gun violence would have exploded in the United States and elsewhere in the world over the past several decades with the spread of VGSVs and other analogous media content. Yet the opposite has occurred: violent crime rates have been going down in North America, Europe, and Japan—indeed, they are at historic lows.

What brings VGSVs to our attention is the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut December 16. Twenty-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 27 people, 26 of them inside the school building. Twenty of his victims were children between the ages of six and seven years old. Lanza was an avid video game player. Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, blamed video games for the shooting, singling out the free online game Kindergarten Killers. LaPierre said that video games are “selling violence” to children. Let that claim sink in for a moment while I detail why the larger claim of video game effects is so wrong.

What is the reason for the recent rise in mass shootings? This begs the question: Have mass shootings increased? The evidence used by James Alan Fox of Northeastern University does not support the claim that mass shootings have increased over the near term. Using the FBI definition of mass shooting (four or more people in a single incident), there were more mass shootings in previous years. However, a longer view does indicate more mass shootings in the last decade than America experienced in past decades. So, even while overall gun violence is down sharply, mass shootings are the exception. They have been the exception long before the mass availability of VGSVs. The long-term trend is explained by aggressive marketing by gun manufacturers, as well as laws and policies making firearms easily accessible. Perhaps there are other factors, but they are not obvious. 

At the same time, the relationship between video game sales and rates of violence is well known and the correlation is negative. If VGSVs and similar media content are a source of violence, then why is there no associated rise in mass shootings with the emergence and widespread distribution of video games and movies that simulate violence? Why has violence generally experienced a forty-year decline to historic lows in civilized countries? Given the astonishing growth in the amount and intensity of simulated violent content in movies, games, and music, one would expect to see a robust effect on real violence if there were a causal relation. 

Why would these games be associated with a decline in violence? We’re not exactly sure, but perhaps VGSVs drain off aggression. If so, society would much rather people get out their frustrations by virtually killing people than by venting in a less virtual manner. Rather than act violently in the real world, video games may provide a zone to act out simulated violence in a manner that doesn’t harm anybody. I have good reasons to make this claim.

Psychologists typically define violence as an extreme manifestation of aggression. The American Psychological Association (APA) uses these examples: assault, rape, or murder. I know of no scientific study that links video gaming to assault, rape, or murder (on this point, the APA asserts a relationship without evidence, as pointed out by clinical psychologist Christopher Ferguson, an expert in this area). Aggression manifests in many ways: anger, competition, hostility, intimidation, violence, and so on. Exhibiting more forceful action in conduct as a result of competition, for example, whether video gaming or contact sports, does not necessarily, indeed very rarely leads to violent conduct. 

Playing tennis involves aggression. But tennis isn’t violence. However, if two tennis players have a fist fight, then there’s violence. How often does this happen? Not unheard of. But a reason to encourage children not to play tennis? Is forceful action in a tennis game a consistent predictor of violence? I haven’t seen any studies to that effect. I would posit that, overall, competitive sports is associated with less violence, since persons are occupied in a constructive activity. Many a wayward youth has been steered into pro-social activities through the vehicle of competitive sports. It’s one of the reasons why there are YMCAs.

What gamers will tell you is that gaming doesn’t arouse the level of aggression that contact sports do. Physical competition—football, basketball, etc.—is much more aggression-arousing than video gaming, just as having an Internet argument is much less arousing than having a face-to-face argument. Should we steer kids away from contact sports because it’s aggression-arousing? Should we steer them from debate? 

I submit that when you have millions of adolescents and young men in their bedrooms playing video games for hours on end you have millions of adolescents and young men who are not out on the streets perpetrating actual violence. A basic tenet of control theory, which is supported by decades of research, is that involvement in pro-social or socially-neutral activities—sports, etc.—keeps boys and young men away from antisocial activities. If this is true, then we might fear the levels of violence we would see today if it were not for the hordes of unemployed young men living at home playing video games. 

While there is a downside to this generation’s lack of actual physical contact with their peers, increased interpersonal violence isn’t one of them. So, aside from the effects of the social democratic reforms (New Deal and Great Society programs) on reducing crime and violence (a trend that began in the 1970s), at least some of the decrease in violence is explained by vicarious participation in sports and activities that provide redirection and release of frustration and aggressive while involving millions in nonviolent activities. Indeed, the drop in violence sharply evidence after the widespread distribution of VGSVs.

It simply doesn’t follow from studies showing aggression following gaming—and many studies don’t even find this, as documented the last time we went through the literature—that violence is a predictable consequence of competition. And there is plenty of convincing evidence that involvement in pro-social activity (and competitive gaming has become fused with social media and is more often a team effort with single-player gaming waning) makes involvement in antisocial activities much less likely. I don’t find the existence of studies showing increases in aggression following video gaming to be compelling. I agree with Ferguson that the touted consensus in psychology has misread and gone far beyond what the evidence shows, hence the growing consensus of doubt over the alleged relationship within psychology itself. 

I can think of a lot of social problems surrounding the addicting nature of the various sorts electronic media of our day, but causing violence is not one of them. The very fact that they’re occupied with electronic media—or engrossed in fantasy novels—means they’re not doing other things. Getting kids to just go outside is hard enough. The alternative is to worry about what they’re doing when they’re not at home. It seems to have escaped people this fact that when kids are playing video games they are by definition not participating in violent conduct. “Killing” somebody’s avatar is no more killing somebody than imagining killing somebody or reading a book about killing somebody. It seems those who are worried about the blurred lines between fantasy and reality are those most guilty of blurring the lines. I never once thought that because a character in Edgar Allen Poe story drives an ax into his wife’s skull that it would be something to consider in real life. And I’m guessing that anybody who does that isn’t thinking about Edgar Allen Poe when he does it. There just isn’t a connection here. 

Do this: Strike the words “playing” and “a video game” and replace them with “reading” and “a book” or “listening” and “to music.” What’s the difference? They are literary or art forms that produce enjoyment for the persons consuming them. Besides, even if we supposed that simulated violence has something to do with forming motives to kill, without access to military-style weaponry such motives are less likely to materialize in murder. Guns enable mass death. Without guns, actual violence would claim far fewer victims. Shootings would be less common.

What ought to shock us are the death tolls from mass shootings. Shootings are becoming deadlier. That’s a function of easy access to high-powered weaponry. And you can thank the NRA for that. Semiautomatic weapons are associated with higher body counts. It’s hard for a man to kill a lot of people with the types of weapons citizens possessed when the Second Amendment was written. We therefore need to deal immediately with the primary causes of lethal gun violence in our society: advanced weapons technology and its associated culture, a creation of the for-profit weapons industry. The shared factor in most these killings is a fetish for the type of guns that have only one purpose: killing humans.

Calls to censor video game content sacrifices the First Amendment for a warped interpretation of the Second Amendment. It will have no effect on violence in our society. Let’s focus our attention on the actual problem: easy access to military-grade weaponry.

Update: 1.15.2013

NRA’s Wayne La Pierre comes on television to denounce violent video games in the wake of Sandy Hook. Then the NRA releases a first-person shooter game, NRA: Practice Range, for persons four years of age and up on the iPad and iPhone. The shooter in the game—that’s you—can take up an AR 15 and shoot at human shaped targets. You know, practice your aim so you won’t miss the target the next time you go on a killing spree. Apple changed the age recommendation to 12 and up. Whatever. Apple can’t change the hypocrisy.

LaPierre is a paranoid authoritarian, an expression of what used to be the lunatic fringe in America. He supports gun ownership because he knows which types of persons are most likely to buy large amounts of high-powered weaponry, the same types Erich Fromm identified in Escape from Freedom. LaPierre desires a repressive society in which right wingers have the tools to intimidate the rest of the population and, hopefully, in his way of thinking, establish a garrison state based on his political beliefs. Why should our children have to live in armed fortresses for the sake of somebody’s gun fetish? Wayne LaPierre doesn’t support gun ownership as an expression of liberty. He’s calling for censorship of media and putting police officers in our schools. His answer to gun violence is to restrict our liberty.