Games have nothing to do with violence. Do you want to know what caused the shootings in Littleton? The so called popular people who make a game out of bullying and harassing people they beleive are below them. If you go to www.theonion.com, you will find an article with an interview with several popular people from that school. It's disgusting. I bet that these people even bullied the two shooters last year before the crime. Don't blame computer games [or] the Internet on violence. These things may contribute ever so slightly but the major factor is that people are being pushed and pushed untill they explode, causing what happened at Littleton and Alberta.

--Unsigned, 9/12/99

(Reponse to Steve Ray's editorial) Very poor argument against Grossmans' article. You offer no facts or studies supporting your 'assessment'. The point about the violent radio shows and plays and written works being in existence long before TV came onto the scene is also a real disconnect. It was very obvious Grossman and the military determined that visual stimulus of a graphic nature had the desired impact in military training, not audio, or written killing manuals.

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but be aware it is just that. Your belittling of social science and research is telling. I understand that they don't have all of the answers, but not once did you rebut them with anything of substance, just your own opinion. So maybe these children were hateful monsters, but how did they become so desensitized?

Yes violent crimes are down but murders are up. Again you demonstrate a disconnect in logic. I understand you make your livelyhood from videogames, but get a grip. Denial will not any better prepare you for reality. By the way Grossman did address, rather clearly, why children become potentially violent as well. Go back and reread it. I also found your caustic and juvenile attack on the premises of his article to be fairly poorly thought out. With this type of defense of your attitudes you won't gain too many sympathizers to your viewpoints ...

--Paul Clark, 8/13/99

I do not think that games influence people to kill. I have played the game Grand Theft Auto many times. The object is to steal cars, shoot innocent bystanders, and shoot police, but I'm not going to go kill the police in my town.

I have also played DOOM. You don't see me on the news where I killed people in my school, that's ridiculous. Kids that kill each other have serious mental problems, and anger problems. Those kids at Columbine showed sign of problems, so why didn't the damn principal do something about it instead of letting them dress and act the way they did.

P.S. Although shooter games don't teach you to, I have heard that some games have subliminal messages, like Grand Theft Auto. Even though it is a stupid game, I find myself playing it for three to four hours at a time.

--Unsigned, 8/13/99

--Charles Sprague

"We played good cowboys and bad cowboys in the old days. We shot each other with our Gene Autry and Roy Rodgers cap pistols. We never even thought about using real guns at school, and guns were available. Maybe we got our aggressions out of our systems by playing our games."

--Alan Lemke

". . . I know a number of kids who played on the dark side and obsessed over their characters while puberty ran rampant and their parents either stood by on the side lines or slept while the kids gamed 24 hours a day. But ya' know, teenie boppers are resourceful and if they're motivated like the kids in Littleton, they can end-run even the most vigilant parents. So does that make a case for crushing legislation? I admit some of the gaming, like semi automatics carrying 30 rounds or more, might have limits but I'm loathe to draw the line without stepping all over free agency. And Lt. Col. [Grossman's] solution to bring down class action law suits against the gaming industry of the nature of those against big tobacco scares me to death.

I subscribe to Frau Dr. Laura's doctrine of social reinforcement through shame. She points out in a number of Eastern cultures when one shames themselves, they shame also the family and society. The onus is so great, it prevents the type of actions we saw in Littleton. Those cultures may experience higher suicide rates perhaps, but on a personal level without taking the neighborhood with them. Create better role models, more nudgy neighborhoods and wake up the over-worked parents and things might turn around.

The scriptures always tended to treat incidents like Littleton as symptoms of wider society based problems and prescribed a rigorous theology of personal responsibility and involvement. If the society under that system didn't mend its ways no amount of legislation pulled them out of their tail spins. . . ."

--Dick Heath

"I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of video games. I couldn't care less if other people play them; I'm just saying it's not for me. However, my humble opinion is that it's idiotic to say that a game of any type caused someone to kill--or to do anything else, for that matter. I think that antisocial people who are determined to act out their hostilities will do so whether they're exposed to video games or not; whereas most "reasonably" well adjusted people will not kill, regardless of what type or quantity of video images you flash before them.

I guess it's natural that people will try to look for something to blame when they're confronted with a tragedy; the human mind seeks to make sense of events, whether or not there is any "sense" to be made of them. But I think it takes a lot more than a game or a movie to make a killer; probably a whole lot of things have to go seriously wrong in a person's life, over a long period of time, before he or she arrives at the conclusion that killing other human beings makes sense. And I don't know what the oft-mentioned "we as a society" can do about it."

--Lynn Walter

"Lt. Col. Grossman didn't ever answer your first question [Interview With Lt. Col. David Grossman]. He answered you with another question and facts from a another trial. But he never answered your first question. Besides that he made some good points, not that any of them changed my mind on anything, but good points none the less. But one thing that he said that proves himself wrong is, 'Keeping your kids away from violent entertainment is the parent's responsibility, and those who fail will end up on the wrong side of lawsuits in the years to come when their kids commit violent crimes.' Then he goes further to say that the law should help them with litigation and such. That is exactly what this country needs more litigation. He's right though, it is the parents' responsiblity to moniter what their kids are playing, and watching. But no one else's.

Another point that I do agree with him on is that companies should stop making first person shooters, not for the same reason though. I just think they are the most pointless games in the entire gaming industry."

--Wilhelm Wogau

"Games don't make people do these things. Parents have to set the example and hold kids to high standards. And they must take responsibility for their own actions--not always blaming others for what isn't going just their way."

--CCTF in VT

"Either media (all forms) influence people, or advertisers deserve their money back!"

--Matthew E. Mason

"Do I think that a cartoonish looking game with cheezy graphics in which players use weapons of mass desctruction, weapons that cannot exist in the real universe, as well as the common ordinary shotgun, etc., [can kill]? Sorry to be blunt, however, I think not. If anything, these games are an outlet for the rage or violent tendencies that a person may have. Experts and ... retirees can continue arguing the point, but nowhere in the real world do these arguments have any rational basis whatsoever."

--Unsigned