> Violent video games are generally not meant for children, so why study their affects on children? First, a few points: * Many things are "not meant" for tee

> Violent video games are generally not meant for children, so why study their affects on children? First, a few points: * Many things are "not meant" for teenagers, yet teens acquire (or do) them anyways. Examples include: alcohol, tobacco, watching R-rated movies, etc. * You may have forgotten just how old kids in highschool are. Specifically, these are teenagers from 14-15 (Grade 9) to 17-18 (Grade 12). While no one under 18 should be playing M-rated games, these individuals are hardly babies. To answer your bigger question: studies like this are important because teens are a huge video game demographic and are still developing (mentally and physically) during their highschool years. Only now are we seeing such an abundance (and easy access to) video games of all kinds, including violent video games. We must have more such long-term studies in order to understand any potential risks for Jimmy if he spends 3+ hours every day playing a game in which his character "kills" humans (who are mostly foreigners and often in gruesome ways). You are welcome to mention parental responsibility and voluntary rating guidelines (and these are good points). I'm also against the terrible, blanket attempts at regulating violent video games we've seen in California and other states. However if we discover a link between violent video games and long-term increases in teen aggression then I see nothing wrong with strengthening legislation concerning the sale of M-rated games to minors.