Greg Tito said:
signed by 115 people who believe that violence in games promotes violent behavior, while 82 people signed the Millet brief in support of the EMA's position that games are protected by the First Amendment
Gamers need to take off the blinders and realize that OF COURSE violent games can cause a behavior change in its consumers, its common sense that it would. Sure we haven't raised one child in a test tube, raised its clone in another test tube, and had the ONLY difference between them be whether they played Halo vs watched Barney and Friends, but that's a higher standard than can be feasibly met. If you ask for that, you'll never be able to admit to learning anything about the world. Science is a set of things we probably know to be true, not a set of 100% no doubt cause-and-effects. Besides, if your games DIDN'T have the potential to effect you, I'd call that pretty shitty "art", as good art SHOULD change its viewer.
Note that I still support private regulation of the videogame ratings industry, since games should still be considered free speech, just like movies and books, etc. Being art and causing violence are not mutually exclusive. Just look at the guy who burned the Korans. Obviously cause violence, but I would never in a million years suggest that he should be prevented from doing so, as he was making a political statement, a right that should be protected at all costs. Let people who actually DO violence pay for their actions, not those they blame for it.
Congrats to those of you who read my whole post instead of reading the first few lines and then flaming me.
BTW people: you don't "fund an anti-gaming study", you fund a gaming study, and then see which way the results go. If you think science is THAT biased, again, we can never truly learn anything from anyone.