Reading and listening to the NPR story "A Real-World Connection Between Video Games And Guns" by Sami Yenigun, I just don't see the issue that he's trying to write about. If the purpose is initiating a debate about licensing the use of real world weapons in video games, then might as well start the debate the use of real world firearms in movies too and perhaps licensing for airsoft use as well.

The story starts that there is no connection  between entertainment (in this case FPS video games) and violence. Indeed, even with the NRA trying to blame video games for the violence as defense for firearms ownership after the Sandy Hook shootings last year, there's no in-depth study that establishes such relationship as a fact and so far it's mainly no evidence that video games can cause aggressive and violent behavour. As we have mentioned before, in countries where violent video games are freely sold such as Japan, there is no corresponding increase in violence that can be said to be influenced by video games.

With such a shaky premise, it's basically trying to establish the connection for video games and real world firearms, which is just obvious to everyone who is into video games. We have previously learned the difference of licensing firearms use in video games (firearms companies get paid) and movies (they don't) so we focus on then on the video games.

I just don't like this sentence in the story, "Gun sales spiked after the Newtown shooting, and first-person shooter games are doing blockbuster business. Last year, Call of Duty earned half a billion dollars in a day."  Which though not an implicit one, is like almost implying the sales of FPS video games such as Call of Duty increased after the Newtown shootings too which in fact is not. Video game sales are growing worldwide over the years even before the Newtown shootings and it's worldwide with many FPS video games outselling Hollywood movies.  But sales of video games are not influenced by mass shootings as compared to firearms sales as such events trigger fear-based sales, video games do not.

The best FPS video games are based on fiction, but influenced by current events, especially the War on Terror and the growing rise of China as a superpower that can challenge the hegemony of the United States as an economic and military superpower. So some form of realism is needed when such plots are written to form the story of the video game. It's the same as movie and novel thrillers. But in this case, video game publishers and developers license the use of firearms and brands from the companies that own them.

And this is where video games and airsoft are similar as both license the use of firearms brands for their development though in airsoft, there's still a big wiggle room to avoid licensing, such as the use of trade dress and mainly the licensing is more on the use of trademarks that are then painted, stamped or etched on airsoft guns.

Also, there's no study that airsoft can lead to real world violent aggression. As far as we know, it leads to having more friends and an appreciation of outdoor and develoopment tactical skills.

Yes it's obvious that popular FPS video games have real-world connection to guns. But to almost imply that FPS video games can lead to gun violence, there is no connection established as studies have shown. In the end, the debate really is about the correlation between degress of firearms ownership and access to gun violence as real guns can be used to kill people,  not video games.