# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to 2013: The end of gaming's seventh generation where the violence gets more and more detailed with each release. E3 has debuted some of what we can expect for next year, and the preorders are sure to go through the roof for an industry that generates billions in revenue every year. But for the end of gaming's chapter, we still lack closure on an issue that's divided researchers for more than a decade. Are video games really what drive horrendous acts of violence? Does Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto really inspire someone to pick up a gun and a massacre a school? The answer isn't as one dimensional as the media makes it out to be.

The link between aggression and violent video games is something that seems undeniable. Countless studies confirm that adolescents are more desensitized to acts of violence after playing these types of video games than they are before. But do these studies present an accurate depiction of what video games really do for the adolescent mind? I'd argue they don't. While it's easy to associate video games and aggressive behavior, the reality is that the level of aggression experienced depends on the person playing. Many of the kids who play video games and commit violent acts already have internal issues that need to be dealt with.

The University of Missouri's Department of Psychological Sciences found that the level of aggression experienced after playing violent video games varies depending on one's disposition to anger. In other words, if you have anger management issues then you're likely to be more aggressive after playing a violent video game. This is similar to a study done by the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, which revealed that not all gamers incur the same behavior and neural changes from video games. Given what these reliable sources are saying, is it possible that school shooters already have anger issues and psychological conflicts that are completely unrelated to gaming? It's not just possible, it's obvious.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Forensic Scientist Tony Farrenkopf profiled mass shooters as people who feel rejected from their school or workplace and have low self-esteem. He also pointed out that many of them have a history of ineffective parenting. In that same article, Psychologist Peter Langman theorized the notion of manhood being about gaining power in our culture is what hurts the youth. Supposedly, violence is the way of gaining that power that we glorify most. On a similar note, Jan Hunt, M.Sc. Counseling Psychology with a Bachelor's in the field as well, writes on her Natural Child Project page that children throw tantrums and act out because they feel powerless. What if these feelings of inferiority continue into young adulthood? Could school shootings be the product of bad parenting?

Two years ago, Current Science conducted a study on sex differences when it came to video games. Men were found to not only be more interested in shooting and combat games, but most of them played "to win." This goes back to the issues of power struggle and self-esteem. As a parent, you are constantly giving and taking privileges, administering punishments and enforcing household authority. Many parents do this sloppily and instill negative values in their kids. Because two adults make an irresponsible decision to have a child when they don't have the time or money to take care of one, adult gamers are expected to change THEIR form of entertainment. The wave of lazy parenting in this country needs to stop. The sooner we take responsibility for our actions, the sooner we take the real steps toward preventing the next tragedy from happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to 2013: The end of gaming's seventh generation where the violence gets more and more detailed with each release. E3 has debuted some of what we can expect for next year, and the preorders are sure to go through the roof for an industry that generates billions in revenue every year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hmm... why don't video game creators sort what is and is not appropriate for children? Oh... Wait...

# data[].attributes.subject
Hmm... why don't video game creators sort what is and is not appropriate for children? Oh... Wait...

# data[].attributes.body
By Shelly Chin
Guns don't make murderers
Food doesn't make obesity
Cooking doesn't make a chef
Suing doesn't make a lawyer
Education doesn't make a genius
Water doesn't make a flood
Air doesn't make allergies
Video games don't make aggression

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's a tale as old as Mortal Kombat. The parents, the congressman, and the media have always blamed things they do not understand for the problems in society. Elvis and his sexy hips, The Beatles and their haircuts, flower children and their peace signs, Motown and their dance grooves, NWA and their lyrics, Marylin Manson and his image, and of course, Grand Theft Auto and its violence (and the list goes on and on). I am going to talk about a couple of recent incidents of the media blaming video games and how we as geeks can help correct the message.

Recently, an 8 Year old child in Louisiana allegedly shot and killed his grandmother after playing Grand Theft Auto 4. Allegedly. All the reporting that has come out of the Sheriff's Office is that the child played GTA 4 and then shot his grandmother. What is fuzzy here, are the kid's motives. Did he just finish a 6 star style rampage or did he just finish a trip to the bowling alley with Roman? What is disgusting is the fact of HOW the incident is being reported. CNN described GTA 4 as a game that gives you points for killing the most innocent civilians. This is what the Middle American Mother is going to hear. That GTA gives you " Points" for killing people on their way to work. CNN is completely out of it to think that we are still in the arcade era, where a player would drop some quarters on Centipede and try to get his initials on the leader board. Statements like that boggle my mind so much that I think the news media (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC) are purposely saying these things to dissuade or scare people.

Recent incidents of violence have always blamed some sort of video game as the catalyst. The Sandy Hook shooting was blamed on Adam Lanza's love for " Violent Videogames ", and that officials found a large library of games they deemed violent.

When Anders Breivik's manifesto was released, the news reported that he played countless hours of World of Warcraft and that it was a training tool used to help him on his rampage.

The VTECH shooting was blamed on Counter Strike.

Columbine was blamed on and Metal Gear Solid.

Why are these associations okay? Why is it normal for us as a society to automatically try to push the blame onto a third party? You wouldn't blame the ATM if your kid stole your card and PIN would you? You wouldn't blame the modem if your kid downloaded a bunch of Brazzers' videos would you? You wouldn't blame your refrigerator for getting you fat, would you? These associations are ridiculous and absurd, so why shouldn't the thought that a video game caused an 8 year old boy to shoot his grandma be just as crazy?

Let's take GTA out of the conversation for a minute. Let us just assume that the kid was taking a nap then capped his gram gram. Why the HELL did this tiny child have access to a god damned pistol?! Where the heck is Eddie Eagle when you need him? Why was the child completely ignored? The subject of scrutiny from CNN should be the parents. If their kid grabbed an Airsoft Rifle and shot out their neighbor's truck windows, they are responsible. They are the ones who ignored all sensible gun safety rules and regulations and let an almost toddler gear up with a .38. They are also the ones who went out and bought an M rated video game and gave it to him.

I'll play devils advocate for a moment and say that yeah, GTA was the reason the kid shot his grandmother (it wasn't). A small, 8 year old, mentally undeveloped child was given a game that the ESRB deemed too advanced for him. Hell, would you give an 8 year old a copy of Heavy Metal? Hellraiser? Event Horizon? HELL NO! All those films would fuck up a small mind severely. So giving a child a game who's title is a FELONY seems like a severe lack of proper parenting. Video games are more and more prevalent in our society. Video games as an industry are bigger than films, and they need to be treated as such. If you think that your (older) child is capable of handling adult themes and you are OK with them watching R-rated films, then as a parent you can have the right to let them play M rated games:

Here's the freaking ratings chart. Read, memorize, understand, and listen to it:

So what can YOU do to help? If you are a parent with a child who is interested in video games, talk to them about what is and isn't appropriate for kids their age. Have a discussion about what is real and isn't real. Set the fucking parental controls on their Xbox and Playstation so if their neighbor trades them a copy of OneChanbara: Bikini Zombie Slayers it won't play on their damned console.

If you are a video game enthusiast, propagate the formula of video game education. Talk to family about the proper target market for games like Grand Theft Auto. Explain the ESRB system. Join advocacy groups like the Video Game Voters Network, be active in the process of educating the public at large. Only YOU can prevent ignorance (and forest fires).

Grand Theft Auto V releases in just a few weeks. It's set to be an incredible, artful experience that took a huge team of talented people years to create. It's not for kids, so don't buy it for them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Are Video Games A Scapegoat For Bad Parenting? | Geekscape

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's a tale as old as Mortal Kombat. The parents, the congressman, and the media have always blamed things they do not understand for the problems in society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over at Vice's Motherboard gaming website, writer Teodora Stoica is just the latest to trot out a bunch of nonsense about video games and violence without bothering to even question broad, sweeping assumptions.

It's baffling that video game websites keep publishing such one-sided malarkey, but as people like to say these days, "It's 2016."

Apparently "It's 2016" justifies a whole lot of mumbo jumbo.

"In 2016, technology and media have turned genocide viral," writes Stoica, failing to point out that genocide is actually a real thing that has never been caused by video games. "The video game Mortal Kombat X features spines being snapped, heads crushed and players being diced into cubes. In Hatred, gamers play as a sociopath who attempts to kill innocent bystanders and police officers with guns, flamethrowers and bombs to satisfy his hatred of humanity. Characters beg for mercy before execution, frequently during profanity-laced rants."

I always knew the game Hatred, which basically nobody played, would be used more to condemn video games than anything else, an unwitting pawn in agenda-driven articles like this one. It's one reason the game has always irritated me to no end.

Stoica's argument, which delves into only one side of the never-ending debate on video games and violence, boils down to this:

Since the Korean War, the military has altered basic training to help soldiers overcome existing norms of violence, desensitise them to the acts they might have to commit, and reflexively shoot upon cue. Even the drill sergeant is portrayed as the consummate professional personifying violence and aggression.

The same training takes place unconsciously through contemporary video games and media. Young children have unprecedented access to violent movies, games and sports events at an early age, and learning brutality is the norm. The media dwells upon real-life killers, describing every detail of their crime during prime-time TV. The current conditions easily set up children to begin thinking like soldiers and even justify killing. But are we in fact suppressing critical functions of the brain? Are we engendering future generations who will accept violence and ignore the voice of reason, creating a world where violence will become the comfortable norm?

No, dear god, no. The answer is no. It has always been and always will be "No."

Real violence and video game violence are not the same thing. The vast majority of people who play video games do not commit violent crimes or engage in violent acts. If they did, the 70 million copies of GTAV that have been sold globally would have thrust the world into chaos. Gamers' empathy remains as intact as anyone else's, which is to say there are bad apples in every bunch. I played Mortal Kombat as a child (yes, it was available in the early 90s' not just in 2016) and never once had the urge to snap spines in half.

Anyone who has actually engaged in real violence---a fight at school, for instance---will know just how vastly different it is from the violence we experience on a screen. Real violence is frightening and overwhelming and takes control of your entire body.

I was in a fight in fifth grade, and never again since, thank god. Three boys chased me into my friend's house after I tossed a bucket of water on them. They punched and kicked me. I wasn't really hurt, but it was scary. I literally cannot imagine taking another human life, and neither can most people. This is common sense. It doesn't matter how many digital avatars you've slaughtered in video games. So long as you're not a sociopath, which video games cannot create, you aren't going to have an easy time killing. Even soldiers, in war, struggle with the act.

The real makers of war and chaos are the politicians we elect, the policies we enact that promote violence like the War on Drugs. It's the religious fanatics and the hawks and the cowards who get other people to carry out their violence for them.

In any case, I've written extensively about the science behind all of this. I don't have the time or inclination to do it all over again. The truth of the matter is, for every study you show me about how video games can make people more "numb" to violence or more aggressive, I can show you one that says the opposite. I prefer to use basic reason and common sense. Show me your studies, I'll show you the world around us.

Every few months or so, somebody comes out with some fear-mongering jibber-jabber about how video games are corrupting our youth, making our young men terrible killing machines. They always ignore the fact that in nations with high rates of video game usage, violent crime is generally exceptionally low; that as video games have become more popular and realistic, violent crime has fallen; that in spite of the horrific shootings we keep seeing, these are never caused by video games, and have their roots in far more complex and difficult to understand phenomena.

So why do we keep seeing this propaganda? Why do we see it from both right-wingers and left-wingers alike these days? Why do liberal video game writers and conservative activists like Jack Thompson all ride the same bandwagon?

Because people have agendas. Because people are arrogant and self-assured. (Oh no, I know a dirty word!)

Because it's fun to get clicks and fun to stir up fear and fun to sit on a moral high horse and wag your finger at people who enjoy such crude things as first-person shooters or D&D. Surely these people are closeted killers, nerdy deviants just one thumbstick away from a massacre.

Hogwash. You have no proof. You have "studies" and accusations. You'll need to do better than that. And shame on gaming websites that promote this nonsense without at the very least presenting the other side.

/End Rant/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No, For The Millionth Time, Video Games Don't Cause Real World Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over at Vice's Motherboard gaming website, writer Teodora Stoica is just the latest to trot out a bunch of nonsense about video games and violence without bothering to even question broad, sweeping assumptions. It's baffling that video game websites keep publishing such one-sided malarkey, but as people like to say these days, "It's 2016."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video Games Don't Cause Violent Behavior

# data[].attributes.headline
Part 2: Does Video Game Violence Make Children More Violent? My Opinion.

# data[].attributes.subject
Part 2: Does Video Game Violence Make Children More Violent? My Opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
No. Video games cannot 'make' your children violent. Parenting is not based on what others teach your children. Violent video games usually have warnings and ratings and if you choose to ignore it, then it's is your fault. It is your job as a parent to teach your child the difference between reality and games. It is your job to teach your children right from wrong. So if video games have an influence on how your child acts, it may because the child finds a better role model in their games than you are. Maybe instead of blaming people, you should blame yourself. Like source 2 states, "Why are these associations okay? Why is it normal for us as a society to automatically try to push the blame onto a third party? You wouldn’t blame the ATM if your kid stole your card and PIN would you?" Also, source 3 adds, "In an interview with the Huffington Post, Forensic Scientist Tony Farrenkopf profiled mass shooters as people who feel rejected from their school or workplace and have low self-esteem. He also pointed out that many of them have a history of ineffective parenting." In my situation, I grew up with video games from children's games to violent games. I get frustrated when I lose, but does that make me want to go out and do something violent or morally wrong? No. My parents taught me right from wrong. If anything, violent video games can make people less violent. Video games can be a way for people with built up anger to release it. Video games are games, not teachers.

# data[].attributes.body
Child 2 lived a fairly normal life. They go to school, play video games, and likes to go for walks around their city. Their favorite type of video game was violent video games. Although their friends wished they could be part of an "epic battle," Child 2 knew the difference between reality and video games. Their parents taught their child well. This child's friends went to enroll in the army after high school because they thought it was going to be like a video game. Boy, were they wrong. Child 2, knowing that they were not emotionally equipped and brave enough to enlist, stayed home. Their friends, however, became traumatized and did more harm than good.

# data[].attributes.body
Child 1 has lived a fairly normal life. They go to school, play video games, and likes to go for walks around their city. Their favorite type of video game is violent video games. One day they were walking through the dollar store when a gunman ran in, fired a few rounds, and ran away. Two people were hit in this disaster and only 4 people were near by. One was an adult that fainted at the sight of blood, one was a baby who was oblivious, one was an old man who fell down and couldn't get up, and the last person was a child their age who was so in shock that they were crying. Desensitized to this kind of violence, Child 1 was able to calmly and  quickly pull out his phone and call the police. In he was a minute later, the victims would have died.

# data[].attributes.headline
Part 1: Has Video Game Violence Affected Children's Sensitivity? My Opinion.

# data[].attributes.subject
Part 1: Has Video Game Violence Affected Children's Sensitivity? My Opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes! And no. I believe that no one is and reacts the same. While one child's sensitivity can change drastically by influences, some... not so much. Children are stubborn; They want to believe and feel whatever they want to, but emotions are short term. Like the video above states, "Much of it [evidence] shows an association, or a link, between violent games and aggressive thoughts or violent imagining, in the short term. But I'd counter that reading a sad book would lead you to sad thoughts in the short term, but no one would say that causes depression."  In Child 1's scenario, they have been desensitized to violence. Is this such a bad thing? Maybe not. In Child 2's scenario, they were not desensitized. Is this a bad thing? Maybe not. Read more about them in their boxes below.