"This is Jack Thompson. Col. Grossman and I are dear friends, and we agree on all of this science in every detail. The writer has foolishly believed everything written about me to the contrary. If he weren't so lazy, he would have picked up the phone and called me at 305-666-4366 to ask me what I really believe and what I have really said, rather than take a cheap shot at me officially endorsed by Take-Two."
Well, I am honored to get a comment from you - it means that my words are being read by the people who need to read them. However, this piece was not about you - it was about the ramifications of the science. You're mentioned in a single line, and that line is about the polarization of the discussion, which not only is a very real issue, but also one that I have observed on numerous occasions.
The problem is this - when anybody crusades against anything, they take an extreme viewpoint. The more attention they are able to receive, the more the field polarizes. When it comes to psychological conditioning, it is there, and it needs to be discussed and understood.
What has happened in the discussion so far is that all we have really seen are extremes. One side says that violent first person shooters are responsible for murders like Virginia Tech and Columbine - which isn't really true. The other side says that they have no impact whatsoever - which also isn't really true. The truth is in the middle.
Both Columbine and Virginia Tech were pre-meditated mass murders. The killers planned them in advance and executed them. The pyschological conditioning from first person shooters (and if I was incorrect about Cho not playing Counterstrike, I apologize - my information hadn't covered high school, and I had some sources that said he really only played minesweeper in university) certainly made the killers more able to commit their crimes. But, they didn't cause the killers to plan them. Blaming the conditioning is just like blaming the guns - for most of understanding how these crimes happened, we have to take a close look at the people.
Now, there are two issues that I really think need to be explored when it comes to this conditioning, and neither one can be so long as the field is polarized. The first is in regards to excessive force in self defense - how likely is this? The second is the possible benefits - if you have a generation of people trained to be able to use lethal force in self defense, how do you turn that into a safer society? Certainly, the potential for a generation of "sheepdogs," as Grossman calls police and soldiers, has now been made possible.
We need to face these issues - I don't think there's any doubt about that. I personally think we can use this to make our society a safer, better place, too. But, in order to do all of this, and truly understand the ramifications of the science, we need a middle ground in which to explore things. And there the extremism is very problematic.
Best regards,
Robert B. Marks