The question stands: What is cause and what is consequence.
Many students of statistics have listened this example: Biologists created map of stork nests in some region. When they calculated average number of nests per household and compared it with the average number of children in households, they found out very strong dependency: more storks -> more children. Should we conclude, that the storks bring babies? Definitely not. The statistics could reveal dependencies, but explanation of underlying relations is our work. Dependency between numbers of storks and numbers of children could be explained by comparison of country and urban areas. Storks prefers country areas and it is known, that families living in country used to have more children.
Similar case is violence in games, movies etc. People atracted by violence like to play violent games and watch violent movies. So we could find out that many of violent criminals enjoyed playing these games. The crucial question should be does these games stimulate violent behavior or rather allows to let off steam for those poeple?
I like to play RPGs and strategies and some blood is necessary to get into the game, nevertheless I often find the maner of depicting the blood disgusting. In most cases the less could be better. The problem is not too much of realism in depicting violence, but too much of exaggeration.
jirka_w's comments