In Skinner’s argument, “Stop Pointing the Finger at Violent Video Games,” the point he is trying to convey is that crime has gone down since 1975 when they did not have video games. Therefore, video games cannot be the blame for kids and teens acting more violently if studies show crime has gone down. Skinner disagrees with critics who say video games make people violent because he plays video games and done not act violent. Jordan Skinner’s argument is valid because I myself play violent video games, as do many of my friends, and none of us have violent behavior.
I feel that critics who say playing violent video games make people violent in real life might be jealous that they did not have these games with amazing features when they were kids. When I say amazing features, I mean the effects that the game systems have today, and how realistic the games are starting to look. The punch line that Skinner uses in his argument is, “Critics need to relax, play an hour of Call of Duty, and look for solutions to real problems in our society.” The point Skinner makes is completely correct. If crime has decreased since 1975 then why should people be worrying about video games when our country is in the worst crisis since the Great Depression?
Some of my friends use these violent video games to release stress. For example, if one of them is stressed after writing a huge paper then he or she could play Call of Duty and relax. Playing a violent video game is just an easy way to get your mind off the real world for a little while. When you play you just get into the game and relax since the game gets your mind off what is happening in the real world. Now, critics may say that people who play violent games get too into them; however kids and teens do not take these games seriously. Kids are not going to stop playing the game and go out to the streets wanting to kill somebody or stab them with a knife like they do in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document