Violence and the numbers

The debate about video games and how they affect the youth of today is never ending; of particular concern are games that are perceived as violent. Generally speaking the games that are considered to be violent all involve a first person shooting type of perspective. The reason this issue has become prevalent can undoubtedly be linked to recent events in the U.S.A where shootings in movie theatres, colleges and schools have become a regular event. In my opinion it is very difficult to make any kind of cohesive link between these random acts of violence and video games. In almost all of these cases the individual involved has had serious issues prior to their grotesque act. These issues include mental health problems, family problems, bullying at school and any number of other things that can drive someone to do something such as the theatre shooting or the shooting at Virginia Tech. When looking at the Hypodermic model and, in turn, Jack Thompson’s opinion, I struggle to grapple with his idea that video games are solely to blame. This is not purely because I disagree with him (which I do) but because statistically his statement is entirely invalid. Recent studies into video games and the number of people who play them are truly astounding and surely throw Jack Thompsons entire argument out of the ballpark. It is said that 97% of teenagers and 81% of adults aged between 18-29 play video games (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2336392,00.asp) . This being the case surely those involved in the shootings in America were far more likely to be playing games than not. You would not find any other percentage that high of something they might have in common so therefore it must be the problem right? This is why the Hypodermic model does not make sense. The odds are that they play video games, this does not mean that video games are the reason they have acted in a certain manner. It is simply a common thread through all of their lives, along with the millions of other people who play video games and do not engage in ‘real life’ acts of violence. In addition to this Jeffery Goldstein talks about how gaming, regardless of the format it takes, has incorporated violence and military like themes for decades. Though I agree with his stance on the topic I do not see his argument as particularly relevant in terms of comparing chess and football to the more modern videogame. They are inherently different in that you are immersed in a game where the goal is to shoot and kill as many people as possible. In football this is not on any players mind, nor is it in chess. Many who play football or chess now days would not be thinking about it roots within military conflict.  So though I agree with where Goldstein is coming from I do not find it an overly compelling comparison.