I’m just going to leave this image right here. I already said what I had to say on the topic a few days ago.
Well, this graphic doesn’t give us all the information-probably because it’s not to scale though.
What percentage of the public plays violent video games. If the percentage of the people who are violent that play violent video games is greater than the percentage of the general public that plays violent video games, it is technically true that there is a correlation between playing violet video games and being violent. Since this graph isn’t to scale, if it looks like 1/4th of those that are violent play violent video games, but only 1/10th of the general population actually plays violent video games, you’ve actually provided a small amount of evidence for the thing you’re arguing against!
Of course, correlation is not causation (if anything, it seems more likely to me that those with violent tendencies would be drawn to violent video games, rather than violent video games causing violence). But it’d be nice to consider one’s arguments a bit better.
The problem is, how do you define violence? Is Mario violent? Technically, he is killing his enemies. Yes, he kills them in ways that are not possible in the real world, but it could still be considered violent. Also, Angry Birds.
That would significantly increase the percentage of the population that plays “violent video games”. People only blame those types of games if they themselves do not play them. Hell, I don’t shooters myself, but I still think they are fine for people who like them. The biggest problem I have with shooters is the attitude that seems to go along with playing them, but that’s more of an XBox Live problem
By ESRB standards:
fantasy violence – that which is easily distinguished from reality – typically earns an E rating.
mild/strong/intense violence – realistic depictions of conflict, blood, gore, weapons, and human injury or death – garners ratings based on the severity, E10+, T, & M.
In the case of Mario, it’s obviously not real, and so not a concern for lawmakers. However, games like CoD or Battlefield could look very real to a kid, and should be monitored by a parent/guardian, not banned for the audience it’s intended for.
Honestly, I think the school shooter linked to violent games was just tired of getting harassed by the 12-year-olds in online play.
Of course there is a correlation between being violent and playing violent video games! It’s just that the correlation is that violent people are more likely to play violent video games, not that playing violent video games makes people violent.
My problem with this debate is that both sides seem to go into it believing that every single person who wants to play a violent video game is initially completely non-violent, until the moment that they actually play the game, at which point the dice is rolled.
Statistics can prove correlation ’til the cows come home, but they can’t prove causation.
And people who were inspired to shoot children because of video games is even smaller portion, if practically non-existence.
Why don’t they ban speech too? I am pretty sure people who die because of what has been said are much more.
I always thought that the correlation between the two was a crock argument. I’ve been playing video games all my life of varying degrees of violence. I would not even hesitate to pick up a controller grab a rifle and scope down a few digital enemies. But the weekend after last Thanksgiving my dad took me on a hunting trip. This is the first time I’ve ever held a real loaded rifle. The fear of handling it with care knowing that a slip up could be harmful, the uneasiness with the noise, the kick when it fired. The fear of looking down the sights and knowing I was going to shoot a live deer. It really doesn’t compare. The only time I’ve ever been afraid with video games was when I was very little and I hated dying while playing Super Mario Bros. although that had more to do with the fear of failure than of Mario dying. It’s always amazed me that people who know nothing of the two experiences have so much weight in passing judgement on the issue.
Yeah, I’ve never really understood the correlation either. Yes, there are idiots, or little kids, who see a video game and try to imitate it, but that number is so insignificantly tiny. People claim they do “studies” indicating that violent video games increase violence, but mostly they’re just ridiculous scientists who monitor control groups of about 100 children playing different games, then select a number of children who responded “violently” in their opinion, turn the number into a percentage to make it big, and then release it to the public to create some kind of whoop-dee-doo scandal. I believe that if a child is young enough to believe that Goombas are a real species attacking Mario, then they probably shouldn’t be playing something like COD or God of War.
Besides, video games are a million times better than what’s on TV. Honestly I’d much prefer it if, if/when I have a child, they go off to shoot zombies in Left 4 Dead, as opposed to watching Dr. Phil, or worse, Dr. Oz…ok, yes, that’s a “miracle weight loss” food, and so was the last 100 food substances and diets you’ve told us about, haven’t you run out of edible objects yet?!
Just throwing this out there, in most (if not all) games I’ve played, you can’t kill children. Even games like Fallout 3, where you can destroy entire populations, you still can’t kill children. Even violent video games have limits.