STOP Blaming Violent Crime on Gaming!
In the wake of yet another tragic gun massacre in America, articles are flying around all over the web - as we all probably suspected - trying to pin some of the blame on video games. We see it every time.
"Mad man played Call of Duty!" or "Gun rampage psycho played video games!" headlines are a common occurrence after tragedies, as though that information is supposed to explain the motive.
But there's a noticeable trend in that most of these articles and opinions come from people who, quite clearly, aren't very well versed in the world of gaming. People who appear as though they haven't sat down and enjoyed a video game since the 1980s, if at all.
Below is a video from UK chat show, The Alan Titchmarsh Show, where two 'experts' and the host gang up on someone from Computer and Video Games (CVG) over his thoughts on violent games. It says it all that the host can't even get the name of a game right, referring to it as 'Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare'. Best to pop a prozac before you watch it and move any breakable objects out of sight.
The woman makes a point that violent games are more responsible for crime than other entertainment mediums because they're interactive. The player is actively choosing to be violent, rather than passively watching it. Fair point, except it's irrelevant. It's still pretend violence. If anything, a game should satisfy a psycho's needs more than a movie does, since it would likely help fulfil their sick fantasies of causing violence. Now for the best part, a quick google search reveals that the woman is Julia Peasgood, and some of her previous work includes doing a voiceover for Playboy TV and voiceover work on a horror survival video game called Martian Gothic: Unification. So apparently, she's "categorically against violence for entertainment" unless it means she's getting paid. Brilliant hypocrisy.
Then there's the other guest, Kelvin MacKenzie. A British 'journalist', famous in the UK for producing some of the most inaccurate stories and outright lies that Britain has seen in the last 25 years. Nothing that comes from him should ever be trusted. He's like a worse Piers Morgan.
It's plain to see that they have no idea what they're talking about, and the poor guy from CVG gets lynched - in spite of being absolutely correct - simply because they refuse to acknowledge or respect his point. Their minds were made up before the guy started speaking, and the studio audience completely eat it up.
Here's some things to consider for these 'experts' or parents that campaign to have violent games completely banned:
1. Do some research. There is nothing to show that people who play violent games are more likely to commit crimes than those who don't or those who watch violent movies. Unless the person is mentally ill, in which case anything could set them off.
2. What about music? Mainstream rap music often refers to guns, violence, gangs and crime, yet anyone has access to this by simply going on YouTube or turning their TV on. There's no age restriction on TV music channels, and it's easy to bypass it on YouTube.
3. On the topic of age restriction, games do have them. If you don't want your child playing violent games, it's your responsibility as a parent not to buy them. But then you may as well stop them watching most movies too, just incase they start wanting to blow stuff up or something.
4. Consider the ratio between gamers who don't commit crimes and those that do. Probably similar to that of movie watchers or rap listeners. Because it makes no difference.
5. This graph:
People need to remember that it's 2013 and gaming is an art form now. It's growing at exponential rates, and it's just as much of an entertainment form as films, TV and books. It is not just mindless shooting, violence and swearing. It is not only teenagers or thugs that enjoy it. Games are story-driven and immersive, and some even impart knowledge.
I've played games since I was 6-years-old (1996), and my parents were always incredibly lenient in letting me play violent games. I first played Grand Theft Auto when I was 9, I've always loved first-person shooters, and I love gory games like Gears of War. Yet here I am, a university student without a violent bone in his body who doesn't even swear in front of most people. I'm yet to mow anyone down in a tank or beat someone to death with a bat.
Why? Because I'm not evil. I'm not an idiot, which is what you need to be to commit evil crimes or believe idiotic theories that games can somehow be the root cause of violence. It's naïve, and a claim seemingly only made by 'experts' or so-called psychologists.
It is possible, admittedly, that a violent game could potentially tip someone who is already insane over the edge. But the same can be said for violent movies, TV shows, even books. Any medium has potential to implant sick ideas into a mentally insane mind. Why is it gaming that always has to take the flack? The massacre in Aurora occurred during a midnight premier of The Dark Knight Rises by a man who was a huge superhero fan and reportedly thought he was The Joker. Yet, I don't recall seeing any 'experts' claiming that we need to stick the boot into violent movies.
Accidental murders also occur all over the world every single day, whereby the killer is simply someone who is easily angered and strikes out. Not because they've watched a violent movie or played violent games, but because they have issues.
While I cannot say that games don't have potential to send someone over the edge, I am saying that anything can, and it's unfair and inaccurate to blame every tragedy on video games simply because it's the newest form of entertainment and thus easily targeted. It's time that we started raising awareness and finding help for those who are mentally ill, rather than laying the blame at a completely innocent door.
"Mad man played Call of Duty!" or "Gun rampage psycho played video games!" headlines are a common occurrence after tragedies, as though that information is supposed to explain the motive.
But there's a noticeable trend in that most of these articles and opinions come from people who, quite clearly, aren't very well versed in the world of gaming. People who appear as though they haven't sat down and enjoyed a video game since the 1980s, if at all.
Below is a video from UK chat show, The Alan Titchmarsh Show, where two 'experts' and the host gang up on someone from Computer and Video Games (CVG) over his thoughts on violent games. It says it all that the host can't even get the name of a game right, referring to it as 'Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare'. Best to pop a prozac before you watch it and move any breakable objects out of sight.
The woman makes a point that violent games are more responsible for crime than other entertainment mediums because they're interactive. The player is actively choosing to be violent, rather than passively watching it. Fair point, except it's irrelevant. It's still pretend violence. If anything, a game should satisfy a psycho's needs more than a movie does, since it would likely help fulfil their sick fantasies of causing violence. Now for the best part, a quick google search reveals that the woman is Julia Peasgood, and some of her previous work includes doing a voiceover for Playboy TV and voiceover work on a horror survival video game called Martian Gothic: Unification. So apparently, she's "categorically against violence for entertainment" unless it means she's getting paid. Brilliant hypocrisy.
Then there's the other guest, Kelvin MacKenzie. A British 'journalist', famous in the UK for producing some of the most inaccurate stories and outright lies that Britain has seen in the last 25 years. Nothing that comes from him should ever be trusted. He's like a worse Piers Morgan.
It's plain to see that they have no idea what they're talking about, and the poor guy from CVG gets lynched - in spite of being absolutely correct - simply because they refuse to acknowledge or respect his point. Their minds were made up before the guy started speaking, and the studio audience completely eat it up.
Here's some things to consider for these 'experts' or parents that campaign to have violent games completely banned:
1. Do some research. There is nothing to show that people who play violent games are more likely to commit crimes than those who don't or those who watch violent movies. Unless the person is mentally ill, in which case anything could set them off.
2. What about music? Mainstream rap music often refers to guns, violence, gangs and crime, yet anyone has access to this by simply going on YouTube or turning their TV on. There's no age restriction on TV music channels, and it's easy to bypass it on YouTube.
3. On the topic of age restriction, games do have them. If you don't want your child playing violent games, it's your responsibility as a parent not to buy them. But then you may as well stop them watching most movies too, just incase they start wanting to blow stuff up or something.
4. Consider the ratio between gamers who don't commit crimes and those that do. Probably similar to that of movie watchers or rap listeners. Because it makes no difference.
5. This graph:
People need to remember that it's 2013 and gaming is an art form now. It's growing at exponential rates, and it's just as much of an entertainment form as films, TV and books. It is not just mindless shooting, violence and swearing. It is not only teenagers or thugs that enjoy it. Games are story-driven and immersive, and some even impart knowledge.
I've played games since I was 6-years-old (1996), and my parents were always incredibly lenient in letting me play violent games. I first played Grand Theft Auto when I was 9, I've always loved first-person shooters, and I love gory games like Gears of War. Yet here I am, a university student without a violent bone in his body who doesn't even swear in front of most people. I'm yet to mow anyone down in a tank or beat someone to death with a bat.
Why? Because I'm not evil. I'm not an idiot, which is what you need to be to commit evil crimes or believe idiotic theories that games can somehow be the root cause of violence. It's naïve, and a claim seemingly only made by 'experts' or so-called psychologists.
It is possible, admittedly, that a violent game could potentially tip someone who is already insane over the edge. But the same can be said for violent movies, TV shows, even books. Any medium has potential to implant sick ideas into a mentally insane mind. Why is it gaming that always has to take the flack? The massacre in Aurora occurred during a midnight premier of The Dark Knight Rises by a man who was a huge superhero fan and reportedly thought he was The Joker. Yet, I don't recall seeing any 'experts' claiming that we need to stick the boot into violent movies.
Accidental murders also occur all over the world every single day, whereby the killer is simply someone who is easily angered and strikes out. Not because they've watched a violent movie or played violent games, but because they have issues.
While I cannot say that games don't have potential to send someone over the edge, I am saying that anything can, and it's unfair and inaccurate to blame every tragedy on video games simply because it's the newest form of entertainment and thus easily targeted. It's time that we started raising awareness and finding help for those who are mentally ill, rather than laying the blame at a completely innocent door.
Posts
0 comments: