This ties in with my earlier post about the anti-gaming lawyer Jack.
Start with this link:
Manhunt Pulled from UK Shelves: Rockstar's killing-fest is called out in connection with a teenage murder.
Then read either of these:
Robbery, eh? How base a motive.
Pay attention to the last paragraph.
So. The 14 year old victim is the one who owned the game, and his own mother was unaware. It was a game that he should not have been able to purchase on his own, so how did he get it?
And the victim's mother is quoted even more in this article.
In no way am I saying what happened to her son was just or fair. But neither is jumping on the blame bandwagon by accusing a software company of "irresponsibly providing a template for murder." (something which books – particularly murder mysteries – have been doing for many years) and being totally oblivious to the fact that her son, the victim, was the underaged owner of the game.
Here is a timeline that offers more information about the murder.
What it comes down to is this: Violence exists and has existed for all of recorded history and beyond. Humanity is predominantly violent. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be such a large market for violent entertainment. But outlawing entertainment isn't going to reduce the amount of violence committed in the world. Not as long as there is still greed, anger, jealousy and fear within people.
If you are a concerned parent then the best thing that you can do for your children is to be aware of what type of entertainment they involve themselves in, be aware of the people they call friends and stay active in their lives as much as you can.
Here's a person who feels differently. Apparently in his ideal "civilized and free society" people are told what they can and can't create or play. I'm tempted to comment, but the post is so old I doubt he would ever see it. Besides, HURR DURRRR covered the pertinent bases.