The whole Bourne series is practically an anti-violence ‘poster child’. Those gamers out there who only see the violence and can’t see the context really need to wake up.

1. Bourne has amnesia and when he finds out he’s a mass murdering assassin, he REJECTS this violent life but has to be violent to get away from it

2. Bourne tries to live an ordinary life REJECTING violence for the sun, sand and sarongs of an anonymous Indian village until nasties force him to run again and use violence to protect himself and while finding the relatives of his victims to apologise

3. Bourne finds the person who oversaw his brainwashing into a unconscionable killer and despite everyone trying to violently kill him, he REJECTS the violent option of killing the person responsible for turning him into a killer as well as the ‘asset’ who would have killed him in a heartbeat, unthinkingly.

The whole series is about the most unconscionable of violent scenarios – an all-powerful state authorising assassinations without any democratic or accountable oversight system via the destruction of the single element that makes us human, our conscious – and unflinchingly the plot states that this is wrong.

If anybody in congress had the balls to be as unequivocal about American violence as the Bourne series is, there would be real change in this world.

Only those trying to pass off face-value facts as evidence could conclude that there are any similarities between game violence and movie violence.

In one scenario the viewer is passively watching with only two senses engaged (sight, sound) and the story is completely fixed by the author. In the case of games, people are actively involved with three senses effected (sight, sound, touch) and the story is variable. If a gamer decides they are not up for the challenge what is the first thing they do? Choose to fart around and try to smash something, shoot a civilian or whatever. This anti-social behavior is not possibly with movies.

Therefore since the similarities between the two mediums are minimal, it is completely logical to have opposing views on both mediums and not hypocritical at all.

The only double standard here is the attitude of those who believe ’soccer mums’ are not entitled to an opposing point of view because ’soccer mums’ are somehow less relevant than a person sitting in front of a plastic box hitting little plastic buttons. Hmmm plastic buttons may create, nurture and sustain life in the future, but until then, ’soccer mums’ are absolutely more relevant than immature male gamers who can’t get enough violence and think they have a decent perspective with which to slam anybody who dares suggest their violence should be taken away from them