"This has all been building up for years. Consider the stats on officers murdered in the line of duty in the US:
Anyone see a pattern here?
Wow, all due respect, but this is a very poorly argued citation. Post-hoc ergo propter-hoc, much? No, I don't see a pattern here. Obama's election? Apple switching from PowerPC to Intel? I think that's the one! Let me try that game too:
* 1911 We adopted the 1911
* 1914 World War I begins
I am going to claim that because of the excess of 1911 handguns, Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. I will back this argument with nothing else.
There is simply zero proven causal link here, a weak (r < 0.5) correlation at best with say kids who are already violent becoming more violent.
The article quoted perpetuates the same hysteria as antis do: let's remember, most gun violence is in the ghettos and not in the schools (and certainly not in white suburban schools!), school shootings are tragic but if you *or* the antis want to do something about gun violence, they should attack where the problem is acute *first* and then go from there.
Finally murder and violence rates have actually been falling across the board, in general -- killing of cops, while disgusting, don't represent killing in general. You could also argue that the rate of policing has been increasing, so since more cops are at risk, more cops are killed.
Again, I don't own a tv, don't plan to own one, and I've laid out my rule I'd suggest for letting kids play video games: other than a few non-violent, educational ones, the only other ones you get to play are the ones you write yourself (I've known a few kids who grow up like this, who built adventure/interactive fiction games as a result, that not only taught them programming, but also boosted their verbal fluency and imagination). However, that's my individual choice. I have zero right to impose that on others.
I'm merely arguing to an individual right to play, own, or manufacture video games. This is a red-herring. All it does is make the principled free speech advocates shirk from you and not join foices (when even the legal arguments that are being used here -- due process, what constitutes protected exercise, what does not, etc...) are actually very similar.
I'll say this: if you want free speech advocates who are unfamiliar with guns to err on your side when you argue that "assault weapons" don't constitute dangerous exercise of 2A, you should be willing to err on their side when they say that violent video games don't constitute dangerous exercise of 1A. Stick to principles people, principles. We can't hope to turn unprincipled opponents (the "morally flexible" crowd I deal with that likes to shoot guns, but also wants gun control for everyone else: to whom no right is sacred, just as no other ethical statement is) around, but we can hope to appeal to core love of liberty of the more principled ones.