by R. Michael Straight

Created on: April 20, 2008   Last Updated: November 27, 2011

No. At least, it should not.

That is, for a normally functioning, non-sociopathic gamer, shooting a zombie on a television screen should not, does not, and will not directly manifest the desire to shoot a living person with a real gun.

Having said that, it's important to note some things. First, it's assumed that the person (typically a child or adolescent, as there's never any upheaval about adult violence being contributed to video games) is of a sound state of mind; no violent tendencies, psychotic reactions, Schizotypal qualities present. Second, that person (child or adolescent) is being taught the sanctity of life. This is not a call for a religious upbringing, simply instruction calling for "golden rule" type morality. Third, if a person (child or adolescent) has any of these qualities, such as violent or psychotic tendencies, there should be an observatory system in place by which any type of violent, graphic or malicious content is strictly forbidden.

Blaming a violent episode of a violent person on a violent video game is akin to blaming the supermarket for stocking the drunk driver's beer. It's logically incoherent and nothing more than a way of shifting the blame away from where it should be: the parents.

If children and adolescents are having violent episodes, the responsibility lies on the parents to monitor their children's actions. Parents who blame video games for their children's actions are making a clear statement of non-interest in their children's recreation. The simple truth is that parents need to be more involved in their children's lives.

A violent person will be violent whether or not violent video games are introduced into his or her life. It's chemical, simply that person's personality. For every violent person who plays violent video games, there are innumerable calm, well-adjusted people who also play violent video games.

The Grand Theft Auto is typically targeted as the holy grail of violent video games by those who wish to make that link. The game is pure, unadulterated, sensationalized violence-for-violence's sake. And that is exactly the point. It is a game made to offer release. It is not intended as an instruction manual on how to become a drug lord or mass murderer. Anyone who uses video games as such is obviously the victim of much deeper-seeded problems, be they inter- or intrapersonal.

The shooters at the Columbine incident played Doom, even "honed" their skills using first-person shooters. Jeffrey Dahmer tortured and killed animals as a child. If Jeffrey Dahmer had had a drug-kill-eat-your-victims video game upon which to "hone" his skill, he most likely would have. The result? Absolutely no difference: a killer, no matter the "education."

Violent video games do not cause violent behavior. They may exacerbate it in people with already-present violent tendencies, but other factors, like abuse and neglect, contribute to a person's inherent tendency toward violence in ways that playing a video game can hardly compare. The time, money and energy devoted to restricting and researching violence in video games would be much better served going to educating parents about how to provide a safe, loving environment to their children.

It is true that desensitization can and does occur when violence is pervasive in a media-driven culture. This, however, does not excuse parents, teachers and anyone who serves as a mentor to children from the responsibility of being involved in their lives.

Violence has been a constant in human history. Video games, content notwithstanding, should hardly be at the top of the priority list in terms of changing this.

Learn more about this author, R. Michael Straight.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.