Do online violent games like Fortnite Battle Royale have anything to do with school shootings?

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Every time I hear of another school shooting like the one yesterday in Santa Fe, and then hear the young men with whom I work talk about games online like Fortnite Battle Royale, I have to wonder if those activities are contributory factors. Do they kill Empathy, do they condition people to see other people only as targets upon which to vent? Then I wonder if Incels play these games, and to what that will lead? Will that virtual reality gun become an all-to-real Real Gun when someone snaps?

 

I know, Guns Don't Kill People, People  Kill People, but are Thoughts and Prayers just an expression of powerlessness or even neglect in seeking to understand the emotions stoked by these activities? It just seems to get worse all the time, and I have to wonder if there is any correlation.

[Scott1989]

I believe this is a well researched area and the simple answer is no, violent games don't cause shootings.  Think Colombine was one of the earliest to be blamed on games (Doom in particular) so it's not a new thought.

 

Do most school shooters play violent games, probably but I can guarentee all school shooters drink water in some capacity but we don't blame water despite that connection.

 

Games are great for calming down as they make you think about something else (the game) instead of the source of anger.

 

This old chart is also a good thing to show:

[Calligraphette_Coe]

31 minutes ago, Scott1989 said:

I believe this is a well researched area and the simple answer is no, violent games don't cause shootings.  Think Colombine was one of the earliest to be blamed on games (Doom in particular) so it's not a new thought.

 

Do most school shooters play violent games, probably but I can guarentee all school shooters drink water in some capacity but we don't blame water despite that connection.

 

Games are great for calming down as they make you think about something else (the game) instead of the source of anger.

 

This old chart is also a good thing to show:

The trouble with the reasoning about water is that everyone _needs_ water to survive. And at great peril, I could point out that females drink water, but they don't become school shooters.

 

And I'm not saying these games or the outlook of _some_ of the people that play them is the _only_ or even _direct_ cause. I'm mostly thinking it's a little like Uranium 238. Enrich it to Uranium 235 and compress it, and ........BOOM!  It think of those game as a little like enriching fissile iostopes, and get them to interact in just the right manner with more than one outside influence, and you have ....death. Lots of it.

 

I actually don't think there is anything anyone can do about this violence in the United States. I hardly believe that people are going to give up playing Fortnite Battle Royale and take up Candy Crush any more than the Second Ammendment folks are going to quit saying "They're Coming For Your GUNS!". 

 

The Grapes of Wrath are stored, and they're not going away anytime soon. Like Uranium 235, it's just waiting to reach critical mass-- with a little help. And I wonder if those games aren't those Little Helpers, and NOT like Mother's Little Helpers.

[Masterman]

Exactly. It's well researched that it's not a very contributing factor. If anything, games serve as a healthy violence release for some.

 

Sick minds will find inspiration anywhere. Games and films aren't to blame, but sadly they're popular scapegoats. I once lived in a country where violent games were banned, yet the political discourse was more violently-charged than anything else. Even religious text are full of violence but nobody would dream of banning them.

 

My point is that violence is everywhere on fiction and real-life, but they won't cause further violence EXCEPT in already perturbed people, and they would react violently eventually even if never subjected to media.

 

PS. In another subject, I do agree that guns don't kill, people do. But that's a flawed argument, because it's more complex than that. If anything, it would be something like people kill, but they use guns to do so, at last at such a scale. If you removed guns from the equation, yes, violent minds would still find ways to attack people, but believe me, some madman with a knife would be much easily stopped than some madman with a machine gun, and the death-toll would be smaller.

 

Now, this is just my opinion, please don't crucify me 😊

[hejsandra]

violent video games aren't the source of school shootings, and neither do i believe they're the source of the lack of empathy in the people that decide to go through with such horrible massacres. sometimes i think shooter games can encourage strategic thinking, communication and teamwork. the closest i've played to a shooter game is splatoon, lol, which i guess technically is just a more PG shooter game. so i can still see the satisfaction in having a goal and a target and then succeeding in hitting that target, even though it has very little resemblance to real life violence (perhaps the same way people enjoy a fun game of laser tag). i think it's a big difference between pushing some buttons on a controller and actually picking up a gun in real life.  

 

i'm sure the level of violence and brutality varies from game to game, and sometimes the pleasure in such games from certain people can be almost sadistic. but you know, it's a difference between causing harm to a bunch of non sentient ones and zeros and actually living things, in the same way people kill of sims but wouldn't go out of their way to actually murder real life people. it's an interesting topic where this need for violent games comes from and how it does or doesn't correlate with real life violence.

[Masterman]

Just now, hejsandra said:

violent video games aren't the source of school shootings, and neither do i believe they're the source of the lack of empathy in the people that decide to go through with such horrible massacres. sometimes i think shooter games can encourage strategic thinking, communication and teamwork. the closest i've played to a shooter game is splatoon, lol, which i guess technically is just a more PG shooter game. so i can still see the satisfaction in having a goal and a target and then succeeding in hitting that target, even though it has very little resemblance to real life violence (perhaps the same way people enjoy a fun game of laser tag). i think it's a big difference between pushing some buttons on a controller and actually picking up a gun in real life.  

 

i'm sure the level of violence and brutality varies from game to game, and sometimes the pleasure in such games from certain people can be almost sadistic. but you know, it's a difference between causing harm to a bunch of non sentient ones and zeros and actually living things, in the same way people kill of sims but wouldn't go out of their way to actually murder real life people. it's an interesting topic where this need for violent games comes from and how it does or doesn't correlate with real life violence.

 

100% agree, hjsandra.

 

I'm not even a gamer myself (I haven't played much more than Minesweeper ☺️), so I'm not being apologetic of the games for the sake of it, by the way.

[hejsandra]

6 minutes ago, Masterman said:

 

100% agree, hjsandra.

 

I'm not even a gamer myself (I haven't played much more than Minesweeper ☺️), so I'm not being apologetic of the games for the sake of it, by the way.

thanks ☺️ yeah as i said i haven't played much violent games either, it would be interesting to hear though from someone who plays lots of those types of games  what they find interesting with them. 

[hejsandra]

22 minutes ago, Masterman said:

PS. In another subject, I do agree that guns don't kill, people do. But that's a flawed argument, because it's more complex than that. If anything, it would be something like people kill, but they use guns to do so, at last at such a scale. If you removed guns from the equation, yes, violent minds would still find ways to attack people, but believe me, some madman with a knife would be much easily stopped than some madman with a machine gun, and the death-toll would be smaller.

i'm know i'm writing a lot in this thread but i'm just very interested in the topic! yes i second this. a couple of years ago here in sweden we had a guy who went into his school and aimed to kill as many people as he could with a sword. it was horrible but i'm forever thankful for the gun laws we have here in sweden since the fact that he couldn't buy an AR-15 must've saved a lot of people.

[erf]

I guess it's possible, but people who play racing games don't become race car drivers.

[Scott1989]

47 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

The trouble with the reasoning about water is that everyone _needs_ water to survive. And at great peril, I could point out that females drink water, but they don't become school shooters.

 

And I'm not saying these games or the outlook of _some_ of the people that play them is the _only_ or even _direct_ cause. I'm mostly thinking it's a little like Uranium 238. Enrich it to Uranium 235 and compress it, and ........BOOM!  It think of those game as a little like enriching fissile iostopes, and get them to interact in just the right manner with more than one outside influence, and you have ....death. Lots of it.

 

I actually don't think there is anything anyone can do about this violence in the United States. I hardly believe that people are going to give up playing Fortnite Battle Royale and take up Candy Crush any more than the Second Ammendment folks are going to quit saying "They're Coming For Your GUNS!". 

 

The Grapes of Wrath are stored, and they're not going away anytime soon. Like Uranium 235, it's just waiting to reach critical mass-- with a little help. And I wonder if those games aren't those Little Helpers, and NOT like Mother's Little Helpers.

Yeah the water arguement was deliberatly stupid.

 

School shootings is mainly a US issue but say the UK has just as many violent games (infact it's the home of GTA) yet hasn't had a school shooting in 22 years!

[Calligraphette_Coe]

1 minute ago, Scott1989 said:

Yeah the water arguement was deliberatly stupid.

 

School shootings is mainly a US issue but say the UK has just as many violent games (infact it's the home of GTA) yet hasn't had a school shooting in 22 years!

Because guns are pretty much unavailabe? And you don't have something like the NRA over there?

 

What if they sudeenly passed something like the Second Amendment over there? With the same lax endorcements of safeguards that exists in the US? And do you think an organization like the NRA could take root over there and lobby with as much clout as they do here in The Colonies?

 

I've been trained as an engineer to see past monolythic reasons and solutions. Just yesterday at work, there was a huge problem with QC on a particular new project. The people who designed it kept saying it was impossible and so was my solution.

 

Guess what? I could duplicate the problem at will, and my multiple cause theory and solution worked. Chalk up one infrequent kudos for someone they call Cassandra.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

52 minutes ago, hejsandra said:

violent video games aren't the source of school shootings, and neither do i believe they're the source of the lack of empathy in the people that decide to go through with such horrible massacres. sometimes i think shooter games can encourage strategic thinking, communication and teamwork. the closest i've played to a shooter game is splatoon, lol, which i guess technically is just a more PG shooter game. so i can still see the satisfaction in having a goal and a target and then succeeding in hitting that target, even though it has very little resemblance to real life violence (perhaps the same way people enjoy a fun game of laser tag). i think it's a big difference between pushing some buttons on a controller and actually picking up a gun in real life.  

 

i'm sure the level of violence and brutality varies from game to game, and sometimes the pleasure in such games from certain people can be almost sadistic. but you know, it's a difference between causing harm to a bunch of non sentient ones and zeros and actually living things, in the same way people kill of sims but wouldn't go out of their way to actually murder real life people. it's an interesting topic where this need for violent games comes from and how it does or doesn't correlate with real life violence.

What if the government required anyone who wanted to buy and use a gun spend some time in an inner city Emergency Room and see close up what victims of shootings go through? I remember in Drivers Ed classes in high school, we were subjected to films that showed the aftermath of really, really horrible automobile accidents, some pretty gruesome like accidents where the vehicle caught fire.

 

What if there were an online video game where you were an unarmed student in the middle of school shooting? How popular would that be? One could argue that THAT would be strategic training. Why hasn't anyone come up with one of those yet? 

 

I'm just asking questions......

[Diamond Ace of Hearts]

No.

 

Next question?

[Calligraphette_Coe]

7 minutes ago, Diamond Ace of Hearts said:

No.

 

Next question?

How would a society go about stopping these shootings from being a bi-weekly happening?

[AndrewT]

41 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

How would a society go about stopping these shootings from being a bi-weekly happening?

Easy stop people buying guns. (or really limit gun ownership)

 

In the UK a farmer may apply to own a gun for shooting foxes etc.

He can't buy an assault rifle to do it though.

 

Someone that works in an office is unlikely to one want a gun, or get a licence to keep one in his home as why would he need one

If he gets shot his gun doesn't save him (a bullet proof vest may have).

 

Guns do not work the same way as a Nuclear deterrent (M.A.D)

In M.A.D you nuke us, we nuke you everyone dies (Mutual assured destruction)

In Guns you shoot me I shoot you.... that does not work, as whoever fires first wins (if both are equally as good shot)

Therefore the only way to stop a psycho shooting up schools is to limit their ability to get a gun.

 

To answer the original question NO Video games do not cause school shootings etc.

I've played FPS (First Person Shooters) for over 20 years, I've never fired a gun in real life, never had the need or want to.

 

[Guest]

The reason other countries have limited gun violence is because they have common sense gun laws and also access to mental health care and help for citizens.

 

Why are these important? 

 

 People with violent pasts cannot buy guns in a lot of other countries. Even in Switzerland, where most people do own guns, they restrict it based on violent mental health histories and the like. They also train people in how to operate a gun safely. And they don't allow automatics, cause no citizen needs an automatic. 

 

One of the common threads in the school shooter cases is that they've had violent mental health issues, but since they were never convicted of a felony then they weren't restricted. Some of them had been reported many times to police, some were on FBI watch lists... but yet, they still could buy whatever guns they want. That's a bit more than allowing law abiding non-threat citizens to own guns. That's playing with fire. 

 

And, as mental health issues are a common trend, help for citizens would be a big benefit. People here cannot afford mental health care, so many go without it. And kids lack access to help from their issues, because the system lacks the funds to be helpful.

 

My town had a high school get shot up recently. I work in the school system and I know lots of people who had kids there. Honestly, if I hadn't transferred positions earlier this year, I could have been working there. When the news broke, our school went into panic mode. My co-worker I work with every day completely broke down cause her child was in the school and she had no idea if he was alive or dead. 

Why did people get put through all this? Because the shooter was mentally ill, had threatened to shoot up a school several times, police had been told he was going to do it several times, etc. But, he bought a gun from a private seller and was allowed on campus, because we essentially allow anyone on campus due to lack of funds for better security. What was his reason for doing it? Because he was being so abused at home, he thought shooting the school and going to prison was a good escape from his family. The teachers and such knew what he was going through, but they couldn't help him.

 

It wasn't anything to do with violent video games for him. It was to do with violence all through his childhood, lack of support and lack of funding. Also, availability of guns even for someone who is such an obvious threat. 

 

Edit: I play violent games all the time. I play Fortnite, a lot. It's just a fun tactical game that requires quick thinking and is a stress relief. I do not own a gun. I do not like guns. I will never own a gun. I can't even kill mosquitoes. I feel bad for killing flies. I live capture mice, spiders, etc. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

How would a society go about stopping these shootings from being a bi-weekly happening?

thoughts and prayers 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

Every time I hear of another school shooting like the one yesterday in Santa Fe, and then hear the young men with whom I work talk about games online like Fortnite Battle Royale, I have to wonder if those activities are contributory factors.

I really don't think that they are.

 

I'd look more at the upbringing of the child, and how they were treated in school and in society, as far more of a contribution to their mindset than a video game, which will often be their escape from it. Kind of like looking at violent crime in slums. Often times, society casts these people away. They're viewed as garbage, and often live in conditions not far from it. Loneliness is a dangerous thing, especially if coupled with psychological issues.

 

They're tucked far away from rich or affluent society. They're an eye sore. Many would love the opportunity to be someone, but society has dealt them with highly unfair blows which are crippling for most, for the course of an entire life.

 

In some instances, if in a third world country, this cold, uncaring environment will turn a good kid into behaviors synonymous with those of a wild animal. Its either feast or famine. They had zero power, so they are taking it by force. People in these environments often wonder how someone could coldly kill at will, but understanding the environment make it more surprising to me, as to why people can't see why.

 

I can see a movie influencing you to smoke, to do drugs, part any several other things. But to kill an entire classroom of kids? I don't think any level of influence unless you're born and raised under ISIS indoctrination will push a person to such acts. Even then. Many had consciences, and surrendered, eventually (many remained due to the fear of what would happen if they fled, vs actually wanting to kill). I strongly feel this is more the exposure of what they have seen in society.

 

However, its their reaction to it or how they view it which comes from within, that pushes them to the behavior. I feel blaming video games or music, is taking an easy scapegoat for behavior that comes solely from the person committing it.

[Yatogami]

2 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

How would a society go about stopping these shootings from being a bi-weekly happening?

They've always happened, it is just reported on more. Since it makes money, because the media is a bunch of vultures.

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/06/updated-information-on-k-12-school-shootings-deaths-the-number-of-deaths-has-been-declining-over-time/

 

Also, it is important to note seperate types. Gang violence, is a far bigger contributor to school shootings than deranged teens. Shootings in general have actually declined.

 

 

[Masterman]

I've worked in media, so I suppose I'm a vulture.

 

Thanks! I've been very confused about my identity. I know I'm a male asexual, but I wasn't sure about my species, and I never knew if I was a vulture or a buzzard. Thanks to you, now I know!

[Epitaph]

Na. It's been demonstrated before. I remember watching a documentary that went in depth on young shooters. One of them watched The Matrix every day and played the most violent stuff he could get a hold of. For its time period, The Matrix pushed the fold on violence in media.

 

The thing with that particular shooter is that he was already mentally deteriorating to begin with when he found that media. It wasn't that media alone that caused him to go shoot up his family. But in his mental state, he latched on to it and was unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. That's the real issue with shooters. They latch on to things that resonate with them and almost idolize them until they eventually boil over and start shooting up somebody. The line between fantasy and reality with a shooter has completely dissolved in a lot of cases.

 

Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people watched The Matrix when it came out, and they didn't get up and start shooting people. The media sure was all over the movie for its violence at the time, but even still. It's not the content that matters, it's the ability of a mind to rationally filter between right and wrong in what they see.

[Yatogami]

3 minutes ago, Masterman said:

I've worked in media, so I suppose I'm a vulture.

 

Thanks! I've been very confused about my identity. I know I'm a male asexual, but I wasn't sure about my species, and I never knew if I was a vulture or a buzzard. Thanks to you, now I know!

Vulturekin unite!

 

In all seriousness though, I am referring to the major corperations. Not some small time outlet. 

[Scott1989]

3 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

Because guns are pretty much unavailabe? And you don't have something like the NRA over there?

 

What if they sudeenly passed something like the Second Amendment over there? With the same lax endorcements of safeguards that exists in the US? And do you think an organization like the NRA could take root over there and lobby with as much clout as they do here in The Colonies?

4

1) Yes, do yo know why guns are so unavailable? Because we had a school shooting 22 years ago which prompted not 1 but 2 gun control laws!

2) Yes we do have a NRA like group, but they are about more for shooting for sport (e.g. Claypigeon shooting) and hunting (e.g. Pest culling). They don't try and arm our teachers or something stupid like that. I think this was what the NRA of the past was like before they went crazy)

3) I think there is too much of a difference on how the UK and the US operate to allow that to happen. There are spending and donation limits for elections, so lobbying groups can't demand so much power like the NRA does in the US. There is also different ways of thinking here (e.g. health care, minimum wage, holiday entitlement, etc) which does favour the people\employees rather than employers (Universal free healthcare in UK, UK doesn't allow tips to be added to minimum wages, 0 entitlement for paid holidays in US compared with 28 days in the UK and it's common to add public holidays to that).

Just looking at Scotand, airgun ownership requires a certificate now, and that was after 195 offenses, out of 500,000 airguns in ciurculation. So  that makes me think there never will be that kind of shift!

2 hours ago, AndrewT said:

Easy stop people buying guns. (or really limit gun ownership)

 

In the UK a farmer may apply to own a gun for shooting foxes etc.

He can't buy an assault rifle to do it though.

 

Someone that works in an office is unlikely to one want a gun, or get a licence to keep one in his home as why would he need one

If he gets shot his gun doesn't save him (a bullet proof vest may have).

 

Guns do not work the same way as a Nuclear deterrent (M.A.D)

In M.A.D you nuke us, we nuke you everyone dies (Mutual assured destruction)

In Guns you shoot me I shoot you.... that does not work, as whoever fires first wins (if both are equally as good shot)

Therefore the only way to stop a psycho shooting up schools is to limit their ability to get a gun.

 

To answer the original question NO Video games do not cause school shootings etc.

I've played FPS (First Person Shooters) for over 20 years, I've never fired a gun in real life, never had the need or want to.

 

7

So much yes, and even those who have guns here in the UK go through strict checks (including mental health) and are checked to ensure that their guns will be stored securly! And they'll check to see if there is alternatives to reasons for obtaining a gun (to deal with pest, why not use non firearm methods?).

[Dj91]

As someone who struggles immensely on a daily basis with various mental health issues I would implore you to look at that rather than an entertainment media that has never had an provable links between violence in games and real life. If someone is delusional enough to take a game out of context how is that any different to the delusion of anything else? 

 

 

[Calligraphette_Coe]

4 hours ago, AndrewT said:

Easy stop people buying guns. (or really limit gun ownership)

 

In the UK a farmer may apply to own a gun for shooting foxes etc.

He can't buy an assault rifle to do it though.

I agree with you! I know what I had to go through years ago to get a concealed carry permit (which I've long since left expire, because I didn't feel that much safer having it and I never found a situation to have warranted carrying one, ever). Yes, it was an inconvenience, but I felt a lot safer knowing that you had to go through a lot ot get one.

 

I don't see this happening in the US. If anything, the laws get LESS restrictive if you live in a conservative area. During election time all you hear 'My opponent is a gun grabber' ad nauseum.

 

Since even mentally ill people have no real trouble getting guns, I think all you can do is try to help at the cultural level. And I'm not sure these games are helping on that front. At one time in history, I believe it was in the Pacific basin, there was an epidemic of young males committing suicide. It went on for decades because it was seen as manly or somesuch. When the culture changed, the rates dropped percipitiously. When it was no longer glorified for whatever reason, the trend reversed. Drasticially!

 

I just think these games tirgger vulnerable people, and since the government is handcuffed by the funding to enforce the laws and by the Second Amendment zealots? "Any port in a storm." I just think the entire culture would be better off if the energy put into these games were channellled to more productive pursuits like Maker Skills. (Maker Skills are engineering- type pursuits.)

 

And BTW, if you are in the US military? There are more restrictions on gun use and availibility during peace time on military sites than there are on civilians in public spaces. The MPs provide security, and if you don't have a good reason to be armed on a base, you are not allowed to have access without restrictions to arms. Also, my employer's management is hard right, but guess what? For all their Second Amendment bluster, possession of a firearm on company property is a firing offense.

[Masterman]

2 hours ago, Malum said:

Vulturekin unite!

 

In all seriousness though, I am referring to the major corperations. Not some small time outlet. 

I'm astonished at how much you know about me. First you're able to guess my vultureness, then you declare to  know the size of my workplaces!

[Skycaptain]

I used to play violent games. Involving death and destruction, but they have had no effect on my IRL behaviour 

[Yatogami]

1 hour ago, Masterman said:

I'm astonished at how much you know about me. First you're able to guess my vultureness, then you declare to  know the size of my workplaces!

I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

 

If not, I am astonished you're taking my vague statements as a direct attack on you're person. I am not talking about you. I am talking about people who are actually on the TV. So unless you're Megan Kelly, or Rush Limbaugh etc. You are not included in my original statement.

 

The Media is literally about sensationalism, in America. "Real" journalism hardly exists anymore. The stuff the general populace is exposed to as the news, isn't based in fact. It is portrayed as a narrative that supports an ideological perspective. More often than not, of the Left wing variety.

 

So before you go on a tangent about me making claims that I am just assuming you're American. Stop. Think. Realize I am not talking about you.

[lollop]

To the extent that access to violent video games affects shootings, I think we should expect that it reduces the number of shootings rather than increases it.

 

The intuition behind the expectation comes from another field -- from countries which have decriminalized pornography (even violent pornography) in the last few decades, providing a natural experiment for us to use to look at the relationship between pornography and violence.  As I understand it, reported sexual violence has decreased in every country following pornography legalization there.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of-smut/

 

It's a correlation rather than a proven causation: maybe sexual violence was just decreasing everywhere anyway, regardless of access to pornography.  But even just the correlation is enough to tell us that a theory that says that access to pornography should *increase* sexual violence is not an attractive theory, given the evidence we have that it didn't increase.

 

I don't see why the link between shootings and violent video games would be very different to the link between sexual violence and pornography.  So if we want to make a guess on how games affect shootings, I think we should start by assuming that games are probably reducing the number of shootings, if there's any link at all.

[Masterman]

1 hour ago, Malum said:

I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

 

If not, I am astonished you're taking my vague statements as a direct attack on you're person. I am not talking about you. I am talking about people who are actually on the TV. So unless you're Megan Kelly, or Rush Limbaugh etc. You are not included in my original statement.

 

The Media is literally about sensationalism, in America. "Real" journalism hardly exists anymore. The stuff the general populace is exposed to as the news, isn't based in fact. It is portrayed as a narrative that supports an ideological perspective. More often than not, of the Left wing variety.

 

So before you go on a tangent about me making claims that I am just assuming you're American. Stop. Think. Realize I am not talking about you.

 

I'm perfectly aware you're not talking abut me. I'm obviously being sarcastic.

 

I understand we don't use this site to demonize groups (except, maybe, Nazis. I guess that's okay). So you might feel journalists are vultures and that what we do now isn't "real" anymore, but that's a generalization that might offend some people in the forums, so I decided to use my moronic sarcasm to make you aware that you were being insensitive, even though I genuinely believe you weren't doing it on purpose.

 

And yes, by the way, I'm not American, so right again!