Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games

Violent Video Games Don't Cause Mass Shootings, Study Says (axios.com) 477

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
From a report: Violent video games (and television and movies) have been a frequent scapegoat for acts of real-world violence. But it's hard to ignore the fact that video games are popular all over the world, yet mass shootings aren't common in most of those places. Naturally, that was the case put forth by the Entertainment Software Association, the video game industry's trade group. "Violent crime has been decreasing in our country at the very time that video games have been increasing in popularity," the group said in a statement. "And other societies, where video games are played as avidly, do not contend with the tragic levels of violence that occur in the U.S." The same case is also backed up by academic research. "Study after study has established that there is no causal link between video games and real world violence," the ESA said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Violent Video Games Don't Cause Mass Shootings, Study Says More

Violent Video Games Don't Cause Mass Shootings, Study Says

Comments Filter:

  • Good point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tripleevenfall ( 1990004 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @09:44AM (#59042908)

    They make a good point. Violent crime is decreasing, not increasing. What's increasing is media attention to these events, which encourages them all the more.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What's increasing is media attention to these events, which encourages them all the more.

      Don't forget about the FBI literally posting pro-violence pro-white supremacy messages to 8chan egging on an active shooter and then submitting evidence to court that has attached screenshots of the posts showing which ones were posted by the FBI .. https://www.courtlistener.com/... [courtlistener.com]

      • For those of us who don't understand how the 4chan-like comment systems work, could you explain what we're looking at in that pdf?

    • Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @10:03AM (#59043076) Homepage Journal

      There was always media attention. The difference is that now instead of the coverage being entirely negative from the mainstream media, you have sites like 8chan and far right media glorifying it. If you take a look at the manifestos of these murderers you always find that they idolized the criminals who preceded them, and drew inspiration from them.

      Because they are in these extremist bubbles where other people validate their idolization, they come to expect that they too will be famous, respected and remembered, and they are probably right. It's well worth watching some of the video of that guy who attacked a mosque in Canada being interrogated. As he realizes how most people actually view his actions and how he has been radicalized, he breaks down and starts repeating "I thought we were being attacked."

      Of course, they can't completely isolate themselves from the real world. They need politicians and other influential people to normalize the kind of language they use, the kind of ideas that the far right indoctrinates them with. Again, if you check their manifestos and listen to what they say after the event, they are usually quite surprised that those people are disavowing them, or try to rationalize it as "they have to, because of the conspiracy" which is usually something to do with Jews like the Great Replacement.

      • Do you have any link to that "I thought we were being attacked" video? Tried googling it but can't find it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          https://youtu.be/AD93hIRrZJk [youtu.be]

          About a third of the way through he starts talking about the terror attack in France, and how he thought that they were coming for his family. Later he says he didn't think he did anything wrong, it was self defence.

    • What's increasing is media attention to these events, which encourages them all the more.

      In part, yes. I agree with you there. It's definitely a source and I don't want to diminish that here. That said, for the Texas shooting at the very least, there was the 8chan post. Now a link between that post and the shooter has not been established so I definitely want to put that out there. However, if the post is by the shooter, you can see that he was motivated by incredibly charged ideology that those who he targeted posed a threat to him. Now it's not a difficult exercise where that thinking m

    • This should also be coupled with the concept of risk aversion.

      When you have solved a lot of big problem... smaller problems start to look like bigger issues because you no longer have perspective. Now that you don't have to worry about roving bands of Native Americans trying to scalp you, there is more concern with the police shooting your face off if you call them in for help when they would definitely be helpful in the event a random roving band of Native Americans are coming to scalp you.

      Sure that was s

    • I was watching CBS Sunday morning about the shooting. They put up a graph of deaths due to gun violence. One percent is due to mass shootings, 60% due to suicide, and 30% homicide. They then went on to devote the rest of the coverage on the 1%. It seems to be done strictly as low hanging fruit to raise emotions which I assume raise engagement/ratings.

      If journalism is off track, it seems it would be here. Where is the coverage of the 60%? Why is suicide coverage 60 times greater? Why does the new c

      • There are many reasons for that.
        For once, you should not put in the same category different types of events based on only one broadly defined common characteristic (gun violence).
        Suicide is something that the perpetrator” is doing to themselves only (with some exceptions), homicide is usually one person killing another, mass shootings are at least one order of magnitude higher on the impact scale.
        Coverage of a suicide is usually covered locally (parish, county, town), homicides are higher on the impac

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lucas123 ( 935744 )

      "Violent crime is decreasing, not increasing."

      While overall violent crimes may be down, mass shootings are up... way up.

      Since Columbine, in 1999, mass shootings “continue to increase in both number and scope,” according to The National Criminal Justice Reference Service. From 1998-2007, there were 21 recorded mass shootings. From 2008-2017, that number jumped to 51 shootings — including the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, in which 58 people were killed at a Las Vegas music festiva

      • Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @11:09AM (#59043724)

        While overall violent crimes may be down, mass shootings are up... way up.

        It should, perhaps, be noted that the definition of "mass shooting" has changed over the years.

        For instance, the number of people killed is down to three as of a few years ago.

        And shortly after they changed the definition to three people killed, they changed the definition to include the shooter as one of the people killed, if he/she/it were killed.

        So now, it's possible to have a mass shooting that involves a guy firing a gun at someone, wounding him, then the police on the scene kill the shooter, the victim, and one other person at the scene (including a police officer)....

        Yes, it's possible in the USA to have a mass shooting where all but one bullet was fired by the police (and all injuries, including death, were caused by the police), and blame it on the guy who fired the one bullet....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nexion ( 1064 )

      This is spot on. I blame the media most of all for these, but other things like divisive politics (which both sides are guilty of) are definitely hurting us as well. They really should just report what happened and not who did it. They sure as hell shouldn't advertise some manifesto for the killer.

      I remember years ago someone in San Diego got a bunch of attention from the media by threatening to jump off a bridge. A few hours later we had another jumper, and then an hour after that another.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      Right the "tragic levels of violence" in the US they mention don't occur in the US either.

  • Again ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Voice of satan ( 1553177 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @09:46AM (#59042922)

    This nonsense is STILL debated !? Who are the remaining idiots who still cling to such beliefs ? Is the goal of the universe to produce more and more concerned mothers, each year more abundant and each year more stupid ?

    • Re:Again ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @10:02AM (#59043066) Journal

      Unfortunately, the President of the United States just got up in front of a microphone being broadcast to basically the entire world and said that violent video games are part of the problem, and that censorship is a better solution than trying to restrict the sales of guns at all.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Of course he did, because he knows that HE is the problem and is trying to deflect attention away. The way to combat this is to keep the focus on him and the things he says.

        There is no denying it, the shooter cited Trump in his manifesto repeatedly, mentioning specific things he said. keep the attention on Trump.

    • Ask the "liberals" at The Guardian.

    • Because after every shooting, a scapegoat needs to be slaughtered. Preferably one that the general population doesn't know jack shit about and that's interesting to people in the age bracket shooters usually come from.

      It's only sensible to defend proactively when you're one of the usual scapegoats.

    • If you search for "violence video games" some of the first links you come to are this [apa.org]. Apparently the American Psychological Association finds that the balance of evidence says violent video games are bad.
    • The goal is to distract from doing anything that could actually address mass shootings, all of which would cost money. We blame video games so that we'll all chat about how video games are _not_ at fault. In a week of chatting we'll move on with our lives until the next mass shooting and they'll bring up violent videogames again and, like lemmings, we'll follow that thread off a cliff...

      Increased gun control would add friction to gun buys. e.g. you show up to buy a handgun for defense and a little bit o
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • what a load of bull, thinking closing down 8ch 4chan or any other chan would decrease violet mass murders either. what a bunch of morons thinking the internet causes everything....

  • Reminds me of a quote... (Score:3)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @10:20AM (#59043240)
    “If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.” Marcus Brigstocke

  • let's not be stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NikeHerc ( 694644 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @10:27AM (#59043340)
    "Study after study has established that there is no causal link between video games and real world violence," the ESA said.

    Are we surprised the ESA would make such a claim?

    I'm sure the MPAA would also say there's no causal link between violent movies and real world violence. However, has anyone seen a hollywood movie in the last few years?

    There is an absolutely disgusting amount of violence for the sake of violence in many, many movies. How can there be no link between violent movies and real world violence in some segment of the population?

    I propose an experiment: let's impose a fine or tax or levy of one million dollars for a violent act in a movie. The amount increases significantly for the second violent act and the increase goes up geometrically for additional violent acts. After five or ten years, let's see whether the number of mass shootings has dropped.

    At some point even hollywood will get the message that violence for the sake of violence isn't a good idea.

    • The end of Michael Bay's career is looming...

    • There is an absolutely disgusting amount of violence for the sake of violence in many, many movies. How can there be no link between violent movies and real world violence in some segment of the population?

      I don't know. You're the one making the claim that there's a link, you back it up. Why would fictional violence link to real world violence, and do you have evidence to back your claim up?

      Most of the studies I've seen over the years on the subject show no correlation between fictional violence and rea

  • This is obviously wrong, I steal a car and plow through throngs of hookers and pedestrians while trying to avoid ever-escalating police pursuits until I get to work and spray paint my car and everyone forgets about it. Video games are totally the same as reality! But seriously though, how many times is this trash argument going to be trotted out after every shooting? It's particularly garbage when shooters' ages are rising and not fitting the "lonely teenaged video game nerds" stereotype.
  • Most if not all of these shooters were raised without a father. There is a statistical correlation between criminal activity and lack of a father in the house.
  • This is an example of abusing statistics to infer causality. Just the same as often times people assume, because there is a correlation there is a causal relationship, it is also possible that absent a correlation there is a causal relationship. What they're missing here is that there may be a subset of the population that is influenced by video game violence and mass shootings, say people who are paranoid schizophrenic(or developing the disorder). In America we have a declining social support structure, a

  • But then: who DID cause it? (Score:3)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @12:20PM (#59044320) Homepage Journal

    The problem with the video game industry trying to figure out the cause of mass shootings, is that they only tested their own industry, but didn't investigate equally credible alternatives.

    Maybe every industry should ask itself if it's responsible for mass shootings. And whoever is last to rule themselves out, gets the blame. I happen to know that roleplaying games and heavy metal will step up and clear themselves quickly. It's possible that the countersink flange industry (especially the products that don't supply steady wall pressure to the lug manifold and all the seismic rotors, or which only do it up to 7000 RQMs) could end up holding the hot potato.

    (And what of equally credible non-industrial causes? Could there be a correlation between mass shootings and the astrological position of evil comets? What if mass shooting are caused by the CIA beaming "kill, kill" into everyone's tooth fillings? And did we even get a reading on the El Paso's shooter's chakra spin directions?)

    Sigh. Thanks for telling me it's not video games. Because, yes, I might be a complete fucking moron. Thanks for covering that possibility.

  • No surprises there (Score:3)

    by OneHundredAndTen ( 1523865 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @12:49PM (#59044598)
    I always thought that people who play those violent games do so because they are people with a violent proclivity to begin with. If this is generally correct, violent games are probably a good thing, by keeping such individuals busy - thus making it less likely for them to give way to their violent instincts in the real world. Independent research in this respect would be very welcome.

  • Psychotropic drugs factor (Score:3)

    by peterofoz ( 1038508 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @02:52PM (#59045864) Homepage Journal
    Another study should be conducted focusing on a subset of the population that use psychotropic medications like anti-depressants while they're on and off the drugs. Do those drugs somehow affect the mental filters that let normal people be generally good and turn them into killer psychopaths driven by triggers such as violent video games, film, and political rhetoric.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close