Researcher: No Link Between School Shootings and Games

[DarthWario]

Prof. Christopher Ferguson, a researcher at Texas A&M International University, has concluded that there is "no significant relationship" between school shootings and video games. The research, from the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, calls into question the methodology of past studies that linked playing video games to violence and aggression, as well.

According to Ferguson, not only is there a lack of evidence for a causal relationship between school shootings and gaming, the research indicates the opposite: "the wealth of available data simply weighs against any causal relationship." (My ital.)

Not surprisingly to anyone who plays video games, Ferguson says that many moral critics of the art form simply don't understand what they are talking about:

"It has been the observation of this author, for instance, that the majority of individuals critical of video games are above the age of 35 (many are elderly) and oftentimes admit to not having directly experienced the games. Some commentators make claims betraying their unfamiliarity, such as that games like Grant Theft Auto ?award points? for antisocial behaviour... despite that few games award points for anything anymore, instead focusing on stories."


If there's no evidence of games causing violence, why are so many people so hot under the collar about the issue? According to Ferguson, people target games partly out of a witch hunt-style panic and partly, because it's super-easy to blame games for violence springing from complicated socio-economic problems:

"Moral panics may emerge from ?culture wars? occurring in a society... politicians, news media and social scientists, arguably [have] motives for promoting hysterical beliefs about media violence, and video games specifically. Actual causes of violent crime, such as family environment, genetics, poverty, and inequality, are oftentimes difficult, controversial, and intractable problems. By contrast, video games present something of a ?straw man? by which politicians can create an appearance of taking action against crime..."



I'll bet you've played a lot more games than Ferguson and most other game researchers: So what's your scientific opinion on the matter? Do games cause violence? Do they cause people to do anything they wouldn't have done? If they don't, what do you think does cause some people to flip out and go on murderous rampages? (Big questions first thing in the morning, eh?) In the words of the great Moe Syzlak: "You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society.

[Tatterdemalion]

Psh, I could have told you that.

Look, why would violent video games cause violence in people? What many people who are critics of violent video games fail to recognize is that virtually everyone, even at a very young age, has the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. People know that video games aren't real. That's why it's called a game. People who play video games do so for the competitive aspect (game) combined with the exciting elements of action and adventure that these games encompass (violence).

I mean think about it, does the thrill of shooting someone in a video game come from the thrill of watching another human being die? No, it doesn't. It comes from the fact that it is part of a scenario engineered for the sake of entertainment. So why would anyone over the age of 5 somehow expect that one would be like the other?

I myself don't play too many violent video games, but that's just because I myself don't enjoy them. I also think some video games, namely war-centric games, can serve as a propaganda tool, and foster a somewhat desensitised attitude towards similar violence in real life, similar to the way some violent films can. Still, at the same time the idea that somehow a violent video game is going to make someone do violent things is just silly.

Next thing you know they're going to be saying that Prince causes children to turn into sexpots. Oh, wait, they already did. Thanks a lot, Tipper Gore.

[loveistears]

I agree with the researcher that you mentioned. [too lazy to look back at the name] Violent video games do not make you go out and kill people. Hell for most kids it's a way to releve stress in a healthy way. Say a kid is mad at his mom and would really like to just ring her neck, don't say you haven't wanted to do this. We all get mad sometimes, and he knew the consiquences. So he'd turn on a videogame and play it pretending it's his mom. Yeah, I know that seems bad, but whats better, him actually doing it or pretending to do it?

Also, the people who go off and kill people usually have had a horrible childhood to provoke it. They usually start killing small things like cats, squirrels, ect. at a younge age because they weren't told that you weren't sapouse to do it. So they think that it's a good idea and when the small things don't satisfy them anymore they go off to bigger things, humans, until they get caught or die.


sorry I have bad spelling

[Fat1Fared]

well, this is an interesting subject and in my own uneducated view, he is basically right, a video game won't make a killer, it may give them ideas, but then so does TV and even our everyday lives, I mean you cannot read a paper or watch News without someone being killed. There are 5 cases of copy-cat Kira-killers (ok that is Anime but good example.) Anyway, though these things act as ideas, they are not cause, because there will already be something there which makes a person a killer. Whatever that is, though there are a range of reasons/theories from social life to genetics, if it wasn't already there, everyone who plays a game, will be murder.

PS Tatter, I also dislike History-war games for that reason

PSS Love don't rush ahead and think all killers, are just people with bad parents...etc, it is lot more complicated than, which is why we haven't yet got full answer, I mean are cases where family caused it, but are many other cases for other reasons,

[havefun]

i have a new hero

[loveistears]

who is that?

[Eia]

I'll bet you've played a lot more games than Ferguson and most other game researchers: So what's your scientific opinion on the matter? Do games cause violence? Do they cause people to do anything they wouldn't have done? If they don't, what do you think does cause some people to flip out and go on murderous rampages? (Big questions first thing in the morning, eh?) In the words of the great Moe Syzlak: "You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society.


My scientific opinion is that video games in no way affect the violence levels of those who play. However, video games ARE a stimulus (just as playing a sport or any other game) and may cause increased excitement during, and after play. Most research, in my opinion, focuses on this excitement only and therefore concludes that video games cause antisocial behavior.

In a contrasting point, I'd like to state that there are disturbed, or unbalanced, people in society who are more prone to violent acts or activities. Often these people are set off by "triggers," or elements present in their environment that can stimulate the person to act on their impulses. Video games CAN act as triggers, as well as BOOKS, TELEVISION, RELIGION, MOVIES, MUSIC, CELEBRITIES, SOCIETY, ETC. So if someone played violent video games and then went and shot up a mall, what ELSE were they doing at the same time that could have also been a trigger? Did the person have emotional issues beforehand? Most scientists do not look at this either.

I'd also like to state that media, of all forms, does not directly influence society. Rather, media is a reflection of society - and when society looks at its reflection in the mirror that is mass media, its own conceptions of itself are either reinforced or causes discordance which leads to change in either the media or the society itself.

[havefun]

who is that?

Prof. Christopher Ferguson, a researcher at Texas A&M International University

...

[Tatterdemalion]

I'd also like to state that media, of all forms, does not directly influence society. Rather, media is a reflection of society - and when society looks at its reflection in the mirror that is mass media, its own conceptions of itself are either reinforced or causes discordance which leads to change in either the media or the society itself.

Of course media directly influences society. McDonalds starts a nationwide marketing campaign, and sponsors the Olympics, McDonalds's revenue and consumer base goes up. Barney tells kids to share, and they get along better, at least for a while.Radio station X plays a song 50 times a day, that song's artist gets a larger fan base. Political commentator Y writes a scathing book, and political party Z gets more votes in the next election.

Perhaps the media itself is spawned by society. That doesn't make the media's influence indirect. If society directly creates a change in the media, then that change in the media directly influences society, then the media is actually directly changing society, whereas society is indirectly changing itself.

[caps]

the media is what makes people think they always need more junk, doesn't it?

and as for video games, I don't think they cause violence, but I think they help people tolerate violence. there is no way to know for sure though. But if you see one dead guy, you will be a little less grossed out and depressed when you see another dead guy, partly because your familiarizing yourself with dead guys and partially because seeing the first dead guy forced you to make peace with the fact that we all die.