Gaming today is considered to be a part of peoples actions and blamed for

violence within the community. I will be talking about two different video
games that have been blamed for acts of violence within the community.
Gaming influencing peoples actions has been a problem in the media for a
very long time and even know its proven to be wrong the media still has an
obsession with this theory about gaming and violence that they just cant
drop, you would think they would have by now its been going on since the
first gun appeared in a game. The media blame games for the actions of
people within a community I will be discussing a few cases that have been
blamed on games.
First I will be talking about a shooting case in D.C. that has been blamed on
GTA 5. 12 people were killed in a mass shooting that occurred in a D.C.
naval office building. The suspect was a former Navy reservist reportedly
named Aaron Alexis and was shot and killed by law enforcement officials.
Aaron Alexiss motives for the case remain unclear, one lobbying group have
already decided to apportion blame for the attack on the entertainment
industry.
According to the LaPierre, GTA 5 (Grand Theft Auto 5), since the popular
game franchise released in 1997 there have been 40 mass shootings in the
United States. LaPierre said clearly, excitement over the release of this game
led Aaron Alexis to commit celebratory murders. Either that, or Alexis was
going on a practice run in anticipation of playing this degraded piece of
garbage.

To point fingers at anything other than Grand Theft Auto V for this
tragedy is morally irresponsible, LaPierre hands down blame It all on
GTA 5 no doubt about it, they clearly dispute the game and dont want
this game to be played by the nation.
Were it not for Grand Theft Auto Vreleased mere hours after this
heinous act12 people would still be alive. What will it take for the
American people to stand up and say, Enough is enough? When will
the heartless criminals at Rockstar Games be made to answer for
these outrages?
Its quite clear LaPierre want anything against the game and put all
the blame on it, LaPierres theory as to why Aaron Alexis committed
such violence is quite clear and they believe that excitement for the
games release was to do with his motivation towards the violence, here

you can quite clearly see LaPierre is not happy about rockstar games
deflecting blame on this.
Yes, Rockstar certainly does have a long history of lobbying congress
for its own ends and purchasing Senators wholesale. Rockstar is even
powerful enough to have a sitting state Senator recalled from office. I
think I speak for all of the adults in the room, Mr. LaPierre, when I say
this:
Fuck you.
You have somehow managed to shit all over another national mass
shooting while attempting to deflect blame from, and we all know this,
your organization which has consistently and systematically
hamstrung any chance for a reasonable debate about gun legislation
in this country.
Others would disagree with LaPierres opinion.
According to Forbes.com
Numerous studies have been conducted and the results are mixed.
Some studies have shown that video games increase aggression;
others show the opposite.
No study has ever shown that violent video games result directly in
actual violence, let alone mass shootings. That doesnt mean it isnt
possible, though the numbers suggest its very unlikely.
If there is truly a direct, causal link between games like Grand Theft
Auto V and violent shootings, we will soon have 18 to 20 million killers
on our hands, not to mention the countless millions more who have
been playing violent video games for years.
There will always be people who see great, calamitous moral failures
just around every corner. Sometimes theyre right; more often, I
suspect, theyre simply uncomfortable with a changing world. After all,

we have a desire to explain why bad things happen, and often we

blame and evoke fear in order to do that.
When it comes to video games, the loudest voices are very rarely
gamers. Like film censors who dont watch film, or book censors who
dont read, this creates a hollow sort of analysis.
Grand Theft Auto V does have morally reprehensible characters, but
the vast majority of people who play this sort of gamehopefully the
adults who play it, and not impressionable childrensee this
experience as one of virtual, temporary, and entirely fantastical
debauchery.

What Forbes is getting across is that these things happen and that
games arent really the one to blame, games could quite possibly
influence something someone will do but would they have done it
without the existence of the game that influenced them, likely. This is
also what I believe. Now I will be covering another crime blames on
video games.

Daniel Petric shot his parents over a game but is the game to blame?

In 2009 Daniel Petric, 17, appeared in court after he shot both of his
parents; killing his mother and injuring his father. The defence argued
that the fault was not with the boy, but with Halo 3, a video game that
had rendered him insane through the sheer amount of playtime he
invested in it. Petric's defence was always going to have a hard time
defending a guy of whom there was absolutely no question committed
the crime. But that didn't stop them giving it the old college try and
blaming a game in a series of contradictory statements that even the
most amateur Phoenix Wright player would object too.
Initially the defence argued that Petric had invested up to eighteen
hours a day on the game for months after an accident left him
housebound. The prosecution pointed out both that Petric's father, a

pastor, had banned violent video games from the house and for him to
have played it for that long would have had him owning the game
before it was released. The defence changed their argument to claim
the housebound teen had played the game at a friend's house. Their
entire argument rested on the idea that he had been playing Halo 3 for
so long and with such intensity that his idea of reality had been
blurred and the game had left him very actually insane. So it was a bit
of a downer when it transpired that not only had he not played the
game he hadn't actually played any violent games. He had
bought Halo 3 after being expressly forbidden to do so, so his parents
confiscated it. They kept it locked away in the same place as his
father's gun which Petric used to shoot his parents, presumably as a
way to stop them noticing that he had the game back.
The jury rejected the plea of insanity as a result of incessant gaming
and sentenced him to over twenty years in prison.
Its quite clear that the game is to do with the kids actions but I doubt
that its the actual games violence that influenced the kid to shoot his
parents, the kid was clearly quite upset about his parents confiscating
the game from him and as he was frantically looking for it because he
was dying to play it he came across his fathers gun and unfortunately
used it to realise his anger on his parents, there is nothing here that
shows the in game, game influenced the kid. Eye for an eye. But thats
my opinion here are others.
Readwrite says
Even the most damning studies don't claim that video games will
create violent monsters of your children. They can't. If that were true,
we'd have blood running in the streets. For the majority of "normal"
gamers, the worst claims seem to be short-term aggression without
substantial consequence, and a general lessening of communication
and empathy skills but again, without specific consequences
attached.
The majority of research on the subject seems to indicate a fairly
tenuous link between in-game and real-world violence. For

example, studies conducted by Texas A&M and the University of

Wisconsin - White-water, respectively, found no conclusive evidence.
"Structural equation modelling suggested that family violence and
innate aggression as predictors of violent crime were a better fit to the
data than was exposure to video game violence."
In other words, a predisposition to violence or a violent home life is
very likely a predictor of future violent behaviour, while video games
are not.

Anyone who wants the government to step in and make the call on
what to do about video game violence will be sorely disappointed.
There simply isn't enough evidence linking video games and violence to
even start that discussion, particularly when films and images of far
more graphic violence are readily accessible.
The answer to the problem seems to be the same as the answer to
concerns about TV rotting your kid's brain in the 1960s: personal
responsibility. If you're a parent, pay attention to the ratings, research
the content of games online before you buy them, and above all, know
your child's sensitivities and limitations. If you're in doubt about the
effect of a game or other piece of media, say no.
That won't end the debate, of course. Truly troubled teens often don't
have the parental supervision they need to limit their gaming or other
media consumption. But it's unclear exactly what the right strategy
would be to deal with that issue.
Readwrite say that there is not enough evidence against video games
causing violence but there are many other theories that video games
do influence violence but research and scientists have proven that

these games wont cause violence and are more educational than
anything else.