Violent Video Games’ Effect on Youth Violence Essay Example

in comparison to the effects of other social influences (Markey, Works Cited #6). Furthermore, false associations have been made between Adam Lanza, Anders Behring Breivik, and James Holmes' alleged obsession with violent video games and resulting violence.

Markey and Layton contend that violent video games are not a significant contributor to youth violence, in comparison to other social influences. They assert that despite playing such games since childhood, neither they nor their peers have ever committed any violent acts. Consequently, it is inaccurate to blame violent video games for shootings and homicides. Kutner and Olsen support this claim in their book Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do by highlighting the role of various factors such as social, behavioral, economic, biological, and mental health in shaping youth violence rather than video games alone. Furthermore, they emphasize the potential benefits of all types of video games on brain function. Ultimately, social circumstances and mental health issues are more likely to impact violent tendencies than specific game content. Carol Pinchefsky's article titled "More Proof That Violent Videogames Don't Cause Aggression" corroborates this point by demonstrating that competitive gameplay leads to aggression instead of violent video game content itself.

According to Pinchefsky’s Works Cited #7, aggression is more closely associated with competitive video game play instead of non-competitive play.

Pinchefsky contends in her article that verbal and physical aggression are caused by the competitive aspect of games, rather than their violent content. She notes that previous studies had their participants play games such as Mortal Kombat, which are both violent and highly competitive. However, Pinchefsky acknowledges that not all competition is necessarily harmful

and aggression does not always lead to violence. Christopher J.

In his article entitled "Video Games: the Latest Scapegoat for Violence," Ferguson rejects the notion that playing video games can subject one's mind to manipulation and condition them into committing violent crimes. According to Ferguson, individuals who premeditate killing do so willfully and not due to programming from video games. As proof, he cites the case of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, popularly known as the Columbine High School shooters, and emphasizes that people are accountable for their actions and not influenced by violent media. (Ferguson, Works Cited #2).

Psychiatrist Jerald Block from Portland, Oregon believes that the reason for certain individuals committing mass shootings is due to their parents taking away their video games which they used as an outlet to express their anger. However, Eric Kain disagrees with this argument in his article "The Truth About Video Games and Gun Violence". He argues that the connection between video games and gun violence is not straightforward since many mass shooters, such as those at Columbine, are part of the age and gender group that typically play first-person-shooter video games frequently.

There is widespread recognition that people aged 18 to 25 often encounter mental health issues. Kain's Works Cited #3 indicates that Harris and Klebold faced complex mental health challenges. Kain and others believe that disturbing events like this can lead to premature judgments.

Instead of investigating deeper to uncover the truth, people tend to accept the first convincing evidence they find. The two boys involved in this incident had severe mental health issues, but their obsession with violent video games was overly emphasized instead of finding a

valid explanation for their actions. Mental illness is a significant factor contributing to shootings like this. Kain also notes that violent children are often attracted to violent video games, making it easy to falsely associate the two. According to Kain, determining whether violent entertainment affects behavior is complex without reliable scientific data, resulting in conclusions that confirm our preconceptions (Kain, Works Cited #3).

It is not necessarily video games that cause violent or aggressive behavior in children, as they may have a natural inclination to play such games. Thus, it cannot be concluded that video game violence is the sole factor responsible for their actions since correlation does not imply causation. Additionally, while violence has been present throughout human history, the appearance of video games is a relatively recent development in society. If these games were truly the cause of increased youth violence rates, we would expect to see a rise since the introduction of the first violent game; however, instead of escalating, instances of violence have actually declined.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website (#8) reports that homicide rates among those aged 10-24 have decreased gradually from approximately 15 per 100,000 people in 1994 to about 7.5 per 100,000 people in 2010. This suggests that recent violent games may have influenced youth violence, but it should be noted that Death Race, the first controversial violent video game, was developed as early as 1976 and this statistic only considers games released after 1994 while excluding other violent offenses besides homicide.

On the contrary, familyfacts.org statistics (#1) indicate a consistent decrease in youth violent crime rates since 1973 along with property crime rates. Additionally, their data shows

a general reduction in both violent youth behavior and physical confrontations among youth since 1991 (#1).

Studies and surveys conducted since the 1980s have explored the link between violence in video games and youth violence. These investigations were carried out by sources with varying perspectives, but no statistical evidence supports this correlation. In fact, data reveals that there is no causal relationship between video game violence and youth violence. While a study from the University of Georgia in 1984 found a connection between physical aggression and playing arcade games, research from Albert Einstein College of Medicine one year later showed that boys who used arcade games for stress relief experienced a calming effect (Kain, Works Cited #3).

As per Kain's statement, research regarding violent video games has advanced but is still ambiguous and contradictory, pointing towards an erroneous hypothesis. The proof indicates that youth violence cannot be exclusively attributed to playing such games since it was present before their inception and has in fact decreased after their introduction. Therefore, there are three legitimate grounds for not holding violent video games accountable for youth violence: firstly, countless youngsters play these games without displaying any aggressive conduct.

Although there is insufficient evidence linking violent video games to youth violence, three significant factors deserve attention. Firstly, mental illness serves as a more plausible reason for violent behavior and has a strong link with youth violence. Secondly, despite an increase in violent video game content, data shows that overall violence levels have decreased over time. Lastly, it's important to note that playing violent video games does not necessarily imply a desire to commit real-life acts of violence.

Perhaps giving these games a chance

would help concerned parents realize that they can be rich and rewarding experiences.