For all of their claims to be hard-headed realists about human nature, there are a lot of social conservatives out there who simply cannot understand the fact that young men have a propensity for, on some level, enjoying the thought of killing people and breaking things. It's the basis of our military recruitment system. There's a reason that 18 year olds, not 48 year olds, are drafted and it doesn't have to do just with the strength of their knees. Combine that with video games that let them run wild in a virtual world, without getting in trouble, and you just might have a means of catharsis, not indoctrination. Rebecca Hagelin proves, however, that many social conservatives cannot grasp this possibility:

With the ever-expanding use of technology by our children, such hearings are critical. We must determine if Moore and other murderers like him are anomalies or if ultra-violent video games dangerously warp the psyches of our youth. Those tempted to scoff at the connection between video games and behavior should bear a couple of things in mind. First, video games are not passive or spectator media. While playing the game, teenage boys and young men - the largest users of video games - actually become the characters who cut up their victims with chainsaws, set them on fire, or chop off their heads.

According to Dr. Elizabeth Carll of the American Psychological Association (who also will testify tomorrow), this active participation enhances the "learning" experience. And video games are often played repeatedly for hours on end - so, hour after hour, teens playing games such as Grand Theft Auto "learn" how to kill police officers and earn points for their barbarianism.

The second fact to keep in mind is that teenagers' brains are still developing and are extremely impressionable. The parents of teens hardly need reminding that for all their joys, teens often lack judgment, critical thinking skills and foresight. Some are better than others, yes, but many (like Moore) are startlingly deficient. In short: Put a "murder simulator" in their hands, and you just might be asking for trouble. But don't put words in my mouth - I am not saying that every kid that plays a violent video game will become a criminal.

Now, let's say that someone were to create a first person shooter based on the War for Independence where you could shoot, stab and beat the hell out of British red coats and tax collectors. Even better, if you shoot them in the head or stomach, you got some sort of feedback like how Unreal Tournament eggs you on when you kill several fighters in a row. How many people would have any problem, in this country, with a video game that lets you tar and feather British government agents? Probably very few, and they'd be too afraid of being called unpatriotic for suggesting that British agents got anything less than what they deserved for keeping us in the Empire.

So what makes British government agents so much more deserving of an ass whoopin than local, corrupt cops in GTA? Is it because they are a symbol of an allgedly democratic, local government as opposed to a monarchy based several thousand miles away on another continent? People like Moore are unstable, hence why they used GTA for "training" and not leisure and a little catharsis like most young men do when they play GTA. I guess I'm in danger of beating my girlfriend because I have snickered over being able to beat up Marge and Ralph Wiggum in Simpsons Hit and Run, if GTA makes others (I never got into it) want to murder cops and prostitutes.

Besides, video games are good for national security. Without proper training on those "murder simulators," how are our fighting men and women going to get used to handling those remote controlled robots and UAVs?