Why 'protecting' teenagers from violence in media won't work

Right now I am working on an essay about how keeping media involving violence away from teenagers robs them of valuable learning experiences.
A point I am trying to make is that forbidding certain material only makes it more enticing, and in the end the teenager in question is likely to find another way to access it.

Does anyone have a story like this I can use as an example?
Just anything that fits with my 'censorship is detrimental to personal intellectual growth' point.

Aren't you supposed to find the evidence and then come to the conclusion?

I've found this to be true for myself and friends, I just want to hear from other people as well.

That said, I'll think more about it.

I would point towards double standards moreso than anything.

Teenagers are often caught up in violence. See: urban neighbourhood violence, refugees/war in general. These sources of violence involve teenagers because the violence often comes to them, and they live in a background of violence.

These groups so happen to be disproportionately marginalized along at least one axis, usually more than one.

Teenagers are already feeling violence. Why "protect" one group from it more than others?

An easy example is: two kids I grew up with. One of them wasn't allowed to play with toy guns. How were they going to shoot each other, then? Well, suddenly sticks looked incredibly like guns and they used those, instead.

If seven year olds can think their way out of that predicament, so can teenagers.

But honestly, I'm not sure why teenagers would seek out violence? Taking their PS4 controllers away is one thing, but it's not like it's going to lead them to research how to build a bomb, out of spite. If you know what I mean.