Dear Future Gamer,

I've been reading about the hundred million-dollar lawsuit in America brought against several videogame companies, by people suggesting that videogames lead to violent behaviour, and I despair. This is so typical of the scapegoating attitude that has become prominent in Europe and especially the United States in recent years. People are responsible for their own actions and yet refuse to accept that responsibility. It's always someone else's fault.

In this case, resulting from an attack in 1997 when a 14-year-old boy shot dead three girls in Kentucky, the lawsuit claims that games such as Doom, Quake, Resident Evil and Final Fantasy VII "trained Michael Carneal (the killer) to point and shoot a gun in a fashion that made him an extraordinarily effective killer, without teaching him any of the constraints or responsibilities needed to inhibit such a killing capacity".

Firstly, my heart goes out to the families of those three girls. I know from bitter experience the pain of a death within the family. A lost life is always a tragedy, and should never be treated lightly. I am something of a pacifist and I don't believe in violence unless for self-preservation. Very few games feature violence for violence's sake. Most violent games put players in the situation where they face death, and where their only option is to fight their way out. They do not promote the notion that killing innocent civilians is acceptable.

Games that do (Carmageddon and the like) should not be published. However, the decision over the content of a game should be left for the developer and the publisher, governments would be wrong to try and censor any responsible media. Parents should be the ones controlling the TV/films their under-18s watch and the games they play. Many don't bother, and instead use the TV or PlayStation as a babysitter without taking an interest in what actually happens during these sessions.

Parents should protect their children from content of a gratuitous sexual/violent nature, as well as anything that glamorises drug use. When such issues arise, they should find out their child's views on the subject to ensure they (the views) are healthy. Violence is not a new phenomenon, it existed before the 20th century, it existed during times of great sophistication and literature, and before then too. It is a part of nature. That's not to say we should condone it, just that it won't go away just because violent imagery does.

A major problem that America has is that its society and constitution value the individual's right to bear arms. When politicians discuss Lunatics with Guns enjoying Violent Imagery, they get all uppity about wanting to exclude the violent imagery from society, which still leaves us living amongst Lunatics with Guns. If Michael Carnal didn't have access to a firearm, he wouldn't have shot anybody. Similarly, tragedies in Littleton, Colorado and Dunblane, Scotland, could've been avoided by denying the killers the lethal weapons they used to cause that carnage.

Something I don't understand is how they can claim that the games mentioned taught Carneal to aim a gun, when they involve using a keyboard, mouse or joypad. Not one of the games cited involved an input device (such as a light gun) that could improve a person's aim. For the most part, my aiming in Half-Life and Resident Evil is very accurate, but Time Crisis is a different matter. If I had been in the development team, then enemies would've been programmed to fall about laughing whenever someone like me began putting bullets in the scenery.

In summary, I am sick of entertainment media being villainised by pro-gun fascists and arms-dealing, neighbouring-country-bombing politicians as the root of all modern violence, when parents and teachers should be ensuring that children don't grow up to be intolerant and violence-prone and politicians should be looking to solve the problems of war, poverty and starvation the world over.

Michael Flaherty, Digital Images

FG: A fine letter Michael. You raise some points that every decent person will surely have thought of already. Games and their violent content are an easy target when it comes to looking for scapegoats. I've a feeling the more smarter American lawyers will use it (and anything else) more and more as an attempt to get their clients off the hook. It's the same argument that's been used for years against movies. Though I haven't got the solution, I don't believe the answer is to eliminate the blood 'n' guts, nor to slap ineffective age certificates on game boxes. The sad thing is mad people are mad and can be triggered by anything. Parents should indeed be more responsible when it comes to what games their children play (though if they're anything like normal kids, they'll get their hands on any game they want to with or without their parent's knowledge) but they should, as you say, be more concerned with bringing up their children to be well adjusted individuals. Thankfully, this seems to be the case for 99 per cent of the population.