Brian Baker (Whetstone Staff)
Brian Baker      Melissa Boyd Whetstone
I like playing video games.
Some of the games I play are violent.
And I am confused when I hear that violence in video games is blamed for school shootings and other violent behavior. It seems as though video games have become the go-to target when those affected by tragedy ask themselves, “Why?â€
Blame has to go somewhere. And, for many, video games become the answer.
Why?
Recently, America suffered a national tragedy when Adam Lanza killed 26 adults and children in Newtown, Conn.
Only a week later, the National Rifle Association (NRA) – which defends ownership of guns – spoke out against violent games as a potential cause of the shooting. News specials on the effects of violent games on children began popping up on TV.
Understandable, considering what had just happened.
However, in the months before the shooting, I had not seen any reports decrying video games as an evil influence on youth. Why? Because it isn’t an issue until a tragedy has happened? That seems hypocritical to me.
In fact, it has only been four short months since that shooting and I can’t recall the last news report I saw on violence in games. Do we forget what we had blamed once the initial shock dies down?
Maybe placing the blame on video games is a way to point the finger at something tangible – and simple. But how would banning video games solve the problem? It might make people feel good, as if they accomplished something. But what happens when another tragedy occurs? What do we blame next? Maybe we would move on to violence in television. Then violence in musical lyrics. Then violence in books.
Why do we do this? I think people look for tangible things to blame because they feel they can do something about it. Mental disorders cannot be banned. Violent actions cannot be banned. Video games can be banned.
Some studies show that aggression in males can be raised in the short term after playing video games. However, people often confuse aggression with violence. In the instance of video games directly influencing a violent event, cases are so rare that there is no data to scientifically study the effects.
If there are not enough cases of video game-related violence to study, I find it hard to believe that video games are a real reason behind violence.
I play violent video games. Why? Simply because I enjoy it. I enjoy playing with friends, I enjoy the competition, and I enjoy taking a short break from “real life.â€
I am not alone. Take the sales of possibly the most successful video game franchise of the last decade – Call of Duty. Call of Duty, a first person shooter, was introduced in 2003, and since then has sold more than 150 million copies. That’s a lot of games sold, and that’s only one franchise. The Grand Theft Auto series, in which players can shoot, kill, and run over anything that moves, including police officers and women, has sold more than 50 million copies.
With the popularity of these games and the amount of copies they have sold, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if some people who have committed violent acts have also played these games. On the other hand, the number of people who play these games and don’t act out the fictional fantasies in the game outweigh those who do by an incredibly large margin. So why are games blamed for the rare outbursts of violence that are horrible enough to make their way into national prominence?
Maybe we should try taking some responsibility ourselves.
That may be hard to convince some people to do. After all, we tend to judge others by their actions and ourselves on our intentions.
But let’s look at some points. Video games have a ratings system that operates on a basis of E for Everyone, T for Teen (13+), and M for Mature (17+).
However, I know that millions of kids under 17 play games such as Call of Duty. In fact, as that series has become more popular, it seems that young gamers are the ones who play these games the most. I hear them screaming profanities at me into their microphones, I hear them talking about the game with their friends, and I see them sporting Call of Duty shirts and merchandise.
How were these kids able to gain access to playing a game they can’t legally buy? Their parents had to buy it for them. Maybe grandparents, but you get the point. Someone older than 17 had to buy that violent game for them.
If an adult buys a game for a child, should he not have to take responsibility for that? Maybe introducing young kids to violent games before they can truly sort fiction from reality is a bad idea. That is the point of a ratings system.
But the same parents who buy violent games for their kids are the first to cry out against those games when their child acts out in violence.
Why?
Because until we take responsibility for our own actions, we will continue to blame whatever is convenient. And as long as violent video games continue being a wildly popular market, nothing could be more convenient.
