It's not up for debate, there's no correlation. I won't deny that idiots will stab people just for a place in a midnight opening or a copy of a game, but wouldn't people do that if they were desperate enough for a book or a film? And that's the key word - desperation. When the desperation or hype has been sated, that's it, the player has no reason to be violent. But the same applies to anything, again a film or a book, maybe even food and water (though the latter are necessities), people will go insane if they don't have forms of entertainment be it in the form of mania or dementia.
A few gangster flicks make me want to be a 30s mobster, but video games have never had that effect on me. Is it because I feel like the mobster in the game, and have no reason to go outside and reinact it? Is it because the game lasts longer than the feature length runtime of a film of 80 minutes? Who knows, but all I know is I find films far more influencial over video games, yet I find the latter more immersive.
Before this argument can be made, video games will have to be vastly more graphic before they make sadists out of players unlike film in its current state. There's also too many non-violent/comically violent video games to brand the entire media form as a danger to public health. Otherwise I can argue every single book, painting, doodle, film and television series is violent and should be banned. It's as simple and as hyperbolic as that.