So at Christmas dinner I got to talking to my uncle about video games and gun control. He seems to be of the opinion that violent video games are pushing kids to violent behavior. While I think we can all agree that a lot of video game content is unsuitable for children I also know there are a number of studies to indicate that games are not a causation for violent behavior.
My uncle is a member of congress in the state of Vermont and I know that gun control/video games/mental health and searching for ways to prevent these massacres are at the top of their list for discussion.
I am wondering if anyone out there can link me to these studies dealing with video games and violence so I can forward them on to him. He’s in his late fifties and is pretty uniformed when it comes to video games. Given that he is a policy maker in our state I would like to provide him with more information on the subject.
Ordinarily, the person making the positive claim has to provide the evidence, because of the problems with trying to prove a negative. If he does not have that evidence, he should not be voting for legislation that assumes it exists or claims that it does without citation. We deserve more from our elected leaders than gut instinct.
But I personally would not have that discussion on Christmas day.
I’d point to Christopher Ferguson of the Texas A&M University among others. He’s one of the more vocal academics who argue against games being the root of all evil.
He wrote this piece only a few days ago. Further material to be found here, here, and here. Just for starters. Some of the stuff is notable because it’s based on a meta-analysis of numerous other studies on this topic.
Tom, it was more of a casual conversation than a policy debate. My uncle is extremely level headed, and certainly wasn’t making a lot of proclamations (unlike me redneck gun nut cousin who was convinced everyone needs an AR-15 and that video games were warping kids into mass murderers). His real concern was about trying to develop ways to identify mental instability.
Anyway during the conversation I realized that my uncle really had very little information concerning video games and their relation to violent behavior. Thought I would send some research his way on the topic.
It’s a violent culture. Video games are only one small subset. You need to look at all media (movies, music, games, etc), the failure of the family as a support unit and poor education. All contribute to violent behavior.
To blame video games is to ignore the 10,000lb elephant in the room.
Games are essentially a reflection of the status quo. If you want to enact legislation, it’s better to address the social causes and not just the cultural byproducts.
As for games in general, the 2012 ESA factsheet shows that a broad cross-section of the population plays videogames. Games are ubiquitous enough that general correlations aren’t meaningful. http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf
If it’s just about violent videogames, the data is mixed. There are some studies that show an increase in aggression, but it’s unclear whether or not that results in crime. In particular, the Department of Justice numbers show that despite the recent high-profile shootings, the overall level of violence among teens is decreasing. Simply put, the numbers don’t support a correlation, much less a causal role. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf
It’s the same with guns as it is with drugs as it is with violent videogames. They all represent enjoyable pastimes for some that might occasionally have detrimental negative externalities for the partakers and/or the rest of us.
If harm to others is provable (looking backward in time), then obviously the law is pertinent. If it’s not concretely provable beyond doubt, then it’s just a matter for debate, discussion, persuasion, whatever.
If harm to others is more or less quantifiably likely (a forward-looking view), then some legal measures may be indicated, or other means may be preferred in the first instance. For example, better upbringing, thereapeutic help, improved education, a refinement of culture, more convincing propaganda, etc.
The law ought to have little to say about harm to self, because in a liberal polity the self and its autonomy (its being a law unto itself, a binding of habits that’s allowed to go free) ought to be, as much as reasonably possible, held sacrosanct. It’s for the individual to decide, insofar as that may be in its power, what experience they shall suffer, and the consequences of their chosen path ought to be freely allowed to flow, we ought to respect the integrity of each others’ individual’s adventures through life, as much as possible. And the law ought to “contain” the consequences of an individual’s choices to impinge as much as possible only on them - both their victories and their defeats should be left to be, and be theirs.
Only if harm to self results somehow in harm to others, does it matter.
Here’s another one. A 62 year old ex-con set a trap for first responders and killed 3 firefighters this weekend. I highly doubt they will find an Xbox and Call of Duty in the ruins of his burnt house.
The shorthand cocktail party counter is that similar accusations have variously been leveled against novels, comics, movies, mtv, etc, and nothing has borne outstanding of that. Given that, the burden of evidence should be upon the accuser.
For more detailed studies, that will have to wait until I’m not on a phone, but the ECA is a decent place to start looking.
I have some info you won’t like, and some you will.
My bona fides: First, I have a child, now an adult and the same age as the shooter. We were told he fits the profile of “people that do this sort of thing” back when he was age 7. We were encouraged to institutionalize him at that time, literally legally abandon him at the inpatient treatment facility. The good news is we didn’t and we were able to stabilize him on meds by his teens. He will be capable of a normal life, and shouldn’t become another Adam Lanza. Well, with one big caveat, as long as he remains on his meds, which if you ever wanted a reason to push for comprehensive health care he is one. We met with each senator and our legislator during the last round of this. My early career was in medical research, so I spent a lot of time with researchers in fields related to his issues. I can speak to this from a personal, policy and research angle, and I have before to politicians. Oh, and I’m a gamer.
What you won’t like: I have personally seen a video game trigger a psychotic episode in two children (one was mine). I’ve seen it more than once. I’ve heard of many more like it. One of the games was age appropriate (over stimulating though), the other was not. These children were not “normal”. Populations matter. Of course video games don’t cause normal children to have psychotic episodes.
What you will like: When the child is an extreme outlier, usually people know this. Professionals know this. They can explain what games can trigger problems even in the age appropriate ones. However, age inappropriate ones are usually very bad. Most professionals also think parents don’t realize that the labels are not only pretty good (go industry) but THERE FOR A REASON. The ability to distinguish certain things like reality vs not true and hyperbole, symbolism and to control certain emotional responses comes in over time. Of course some children get there early. If you want to know what to do with “the video game problem” then it should be to enforce the age restrictions. Penalize retailers that ignore them. Have public awareness campaigns to let parents know they are there for a very good reason.
What you won’t like again: Children that are strong outliers for mental health can not get care. Avoiding certain video games esp. at certain ages is the least of the things they don’t know. I had financial resources, a second parent (not a single parent) and personal connections to get my son treatment in places where often it doesn’t exist. At one point that meant quitting my job and providing acute care in my home when inpatient beds were not available. Most parents with children like this, and I have met many in support groups and waiting rooms end up single parents, have limited financial resources (not Lanza tho interestingly), and do not have the specific education level and contacts in the medical research community and facilities we had. Most of these children will commit suicide as young adults, perhaps killing the primary caregiver. The rest are ticking time bombs. And there are NO BEDS (inpatient psychiatric) in many states, and in most states not enough. If they are located in a rural area there are neither psychiatrists for outpatient care and diagnosis or beds for inpatient care. Frequently the prison system is the only place to turn.
tldr: So if he wants solid action items that will be effective, enforce age rating labels on video games. Have public awareness programs on why they exist. Though, things like with limiting sales of certain weapons and high capacity clips are valid, it will help mitigate the damage only. Our mental health care system is beyond broken. I grew up in D.C., and like I said above I have a background of being asked to be the one to come in and talk to staff members by mental health and medical care lobbying groups. PM me if your uncle would want to talk to me. I’ve given enough info out and like to protect my son’s privacy.
I’d be very interested in your perspective on the “I am Adam Lanza’s Mother” mess from last week Hechi. Your reply is 100x better than that one from where I sit.
Thanks for sharing Hechi. I appreciate your perspective and openness.
I certainly don’t think that games are completely harmless for already unstable people, quite the opposite. But I think that culturally there is an over-reaction to these effects where the games are being blamed for what is really mental instability in the individual.
This is a complicated issue, and I fear a lot of people are looking to games as a scapegoat since the real issues are so much more difficult to tackle.
Don’t forget that in a culture of ‘fear’ being at WAR for the last 11 years might also be bad for mentally unbalanced people who can not find treatment outside of the penal system.
Reducing access to video games/mental stimuli or having “easy” access to high capacity (for damage) weapons are not addressing the issue with mental health, however one of these would perhaps help reduce the potential damage a perpetrator could induce and the other would not. That said; Removing these weapons from the streets (and stopping them from being smuggled into Mexico (another issue)) is going to be a tough fight and I am unsure if the Democratic party has the fortitude to see such a battle through to the end.
But… was the video game the trigger but the pure virtue of being a video game, or it was just because it was the thing being used in that moment by the children?
That’s kind of important. Because if the trigger also could be a ball, a set of cards, a tv series or a comic, well, the trigger can be anything the kids care for.
Absolutely. But there aren’t even enough mental services to many areas of the country to even identify (as in receive a proper diagnosis) the instability! So, of from a policy perspective you want the most bang for your state dollar, there it is. And that is why I included that even though your question was limited to video games. I’m absolutely certain rural areas in your state are in that category. How many critical care, fully funded, inpatient state run mental health crisis beds for children are in your state? Are free screening referrals available through county level resources (other than jails) if a child is referred as “of potential concern” by teachers, parents or other reputable community members? If so, is there safe transport available from the rural areas to the beds? Is follow-up care available, probably for free or heavily subsidized, in both rural and city areas? We have excellent insurance. Many years we exhausted its mental coverage for the year by … March?
It is complicated, and certainly involves many issues in the greater culture that are beyond the scope of a political policy decision. Also, guns, on both counts. However, remember I grew up in D.C. If there is a sensible policy decision that can be made to satisfy the “whim of the moment” overreactionary types, it is a good move. In this case there is, it is what I stated in the tl;dr. Tighten laws to enforce existing age rating labels on games. Like ratings on movies, or age limits on alcohol, the system exists, enforce it a little more. Run public awareness that they are there for a reason. You know, six year olds should probably not be left to be babysat by the game console, and certainly not by bloody FPS’s at that age. You do realize that most of the families with abnormal children have mental illness that runs in the family? A few hints to some parents who are less educated and mentally able themselves is not a bad thing.
Not only then are you politically responding to the “DO SOMETHING!”, but you are doing the right thing. And chances are at very low cost. A directive to law enforcement to have some chats, issue warnings. If you want to be seen as really responsive maybe some low level ads. Sometimes it is best if the calmer members of the legislatures find ways of educating their constituents rather than pandering. Lets just say that in addition to D.C. level upbringing I also had a state legislature Senator in my extended family too.
Of course, it won’t fix the root problem, but we both knew it wasn’t video games right? You asked me how to save video games, politically: I told you.
Absolutely sure. Not only was it repeatable, but I discussed it with top pediatric psychiatric researchers at a nationally known research and teaching hospital/university and have their best guesses as to exactly what neurological pathways were triggered. Since it was repeatable it was also easily observed in a clinical setting.
Remember, populations matter. I, as an adult mentally stable gamer, could, and did, pick up the exact same game and repeat the exact same things and find it well it depended on the game but somewhere between enjoyable and vaguely boring in one case!
Though I think there’s very little evidence that violent games increase violent behavior, that argument never seems to mean much: the narrative that pretending to do violent things and being rewarded for them leads to actually doing violent things makes too much sense for people to accept “there’s no evidence that is true” as a counter-argument. The evidence would only be meaningful if there was a conclusive study proving some other narrative (like violence being a “blowing off steam” type of thing, so violent behavior in a pretend world or vicarious experiences of violence through media result in less need to create your own).
Therefore, I think the better argument to have on this topic is this:
Let’s agree that there are plenty of games which do not have violence at all and therefore should not have laws restricting their speech
Let’s assume that someone wanted to make (and enough people wanted to play) a game where you literally plan & execute mass murders against realistic scenarios, with rewards for body count and shock value and whatever else you are worried about.
It’s pretty easy to see that there is a spectrum from “100% non-violent” to this kind of “murder simulator”, so what we are talking about is some form of “violence control” legislation that either restricts the creation, sale, or audience of a game based on where it falls along this spectrum.
How do you draft a law like that? Do you create a federal (or state or whatever) version of the ESRB (or MPAA) rating system, which uses some vague guidelines to determine if the violence in a game is acceptable? Is it an age restriction, or an outright ban? If I take the exact same “murder simulator” described above and make the targets into aliens and the protagonist into a member of the human underground resistance does it still get banned? What if I have a game where all the actual violence happens off-screen, but I get to decide whether to have people killed or not?
I think it’s easy for people who “don’t know anything” about games to equate gun control with violent game control, but those people do really know enough about games to realize that it is a whole different ball of wax - there’s no physical object to ban; you are banning an idea, a process. If you get someone to try to break down how that ban would be constructed, they will quickly realize that the real analogy they are going for is Civil Rights legislation.
But we need to also admit that while games should be treated as protected speech, there are limits on speech and not everything in a game should be protected. Censorship isn’t the problem, it’s censoring the wrong things that are the problem. If we’d like to use a series of laws to begin a cultural shift against the glorification of violence, then we should target our laws at producing that. Create incentives for non-violent games (thus giving developers less reason to take the lazy way out and use violence as the fiction for conflict). Create very narrow, symbolic bans of specific actions or rewards or goals (which will ensure that people are uncomfortable with those things, even if they are occasionally drawn to their taboo nature). Create a community-based process for censoring individual games (which will both get communities actively involved in the legitimate evaluation of individual cases instead of the generic condemnation of the unknown and create an incentive for developers not to push the envelope on things that might cross the line).
In other words, have a rational policy discussion instead of a religious argument.
Personal experience: I wanted to get Grand Theft Auto when it came out. So I had to have my father come with me, what did he say to the game? He said No, later on when GTA 3 came around while I was able to get it on my own I still let him know that’s what I was getting and we had a short talk about how games are not real life.
The attempt to blame the video games as the root of cause of shootings is like they are tying to say, ‘there was never any gun violence ever before the invention of violent video games.’ Did playing cops and robbers out side help make people into hardened bank robbing criminals? Did playing Cowboys and Indians (before they were called native americans) have the same effect? Why is it any time anyone talks about gun control in America is it always the fault of some other media and not the notion that you can easily get your hands on guns? It’s the ever popular ‘guns don’t kill people’ but with ‘games kill people’ instead of ‘people kill people’ or ‘movies kill people’.
If video game violence was a trigger for violent behavior, particularly gun crimes, then you would expect to see higher rates of gun crime in countries where lots of video games are sold. People in Canada, the UK, Japan, Sweden and others spend millions on video games each year. Many of them action games that feature firearms. Gun crime in all these countries is low and has not increased with growing video game sales. QED.
There was a story about this on the news the other night as well.
