In this article we reply to C. J. Ferguson and J. Kilburn's (2010) critique of our meta-analysis on violent video game effects (C. A. Anderson et al., 2010). We rely on well-established methodological and statistical theory and on empirical data to show that claims of bias and misinterpretation on our part are simply wrong. One should not systematically exclude unpublished studies from meta-analytic reviews. There is no evidence of publication or selection bias in our data. We did not purposely exclude certain studies; we included all studies that met our inclusion criteria. Although C. J. Ferguson and J. Kilburn believe that the effects we obtained are trivial in size, they are larger than many effects that are deemed sufficiently large to warrant action in medical and violence domains. The claim that we (and other media violence scholars) are attempting to create a false crisis is a red herring. (Contains 3 footnotes.)