The Political Game: How old is too old for game blame?

by Dennis McCauley { May 25th 2007 at 11:58AM }

Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:

School shooting? Mass murder? Horrific homicide?

If the killer is of a certain age, video games are sure to be blamed, at least in certain quarters. But that age might be older than you think. When pundits, culture cops and massacre chasers espouse their theories about the forces that drive real-world killers, exactly how old does the perpetrator need to be before video games get a pass?

Based on recent events, that magic number is ... 30. As Joystiq readers know, it's practically a given these days that video games will be mentioned anytime there's a school shooting. But what if the shooter is no kid?

Consider that Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech killer, was 23.

Kimveer Gill, who shot up Montreal's Dawson College last year, was 26.

Kevin Ray Underwood, 26, butchered a little girl in April of 2006.

Charles McCoy was 29 when police arrested him in 2004 for a series of sniper shootings along interstates in Ohio.

While it's apparent that Cho, Gill, Underwood and McCoy were deeply disturbed adults, video games were blamed to some degree in all four cases. Game-hatin' attorney Jack Thompson, fringe political figure Lyndon LaRouche, and TV shrink Dr. Phil McGraw all gave video games a mention in relation to the Virginia Tech rampage.

Canadian journalist Mike Strobel was quick to blame the Dawson College shooting on Gill's play of Super Columbine Massacre RPG. And Rep. Roy Burrell, the man behind Louisiana's failed 2006 video game law, trotted out Kevin Ray Underwood's play of Kingdom of Loathing, an online game involving stick figures, during his testimony before the legislature. Jack Thompson pursued the video game angle in the Ohio sniper case.

On the other hand, Amish school shooter Charles Roberts, also deeply disturbed, was 32. Not a peep was heard about video games in that case. Nor were games mentioned in the case of Duane Morrison, 53, who held six teenage girls hostage in Bailey, Colorado last year, molesting several and killing one victim as police stormed in. Last weekend a 36-year old man went on a shooting spree in Idaho that claimed the lives of four, including a police officer. Games didn't come up in the coverage.

While critics of video game violence generally say they want to restrict sales of M-rated games to minors (and who can argue with that?), some appear willing to raise the issue in response to any horrific crime committed by anyone 30 or younger. Perhaps it gives publicity to their agendas. Perhaps it's a ploy to get face time with the TV pundits. Perhaps they'd really like to ban violent games for players of all ages.

Take Cho Seung Hui. If the Virginia Tech madman ever really was an underage player of violent video games, such underage play would have happened at least five years before the VTU rampage. Kimveer Gill was nine years beyond the cutoff age for an M-rated game, as was Kevin Ray Underwood. Charles McCoy hadn't seen 17 in a dozen years.

So why were games even mentioned? Are game violence critics postulating some kind of longterm effect, such as, play Counter-Strike today and be programmed for mass murder a decade from now? Or are they saying that grownups aren't responsible for what they do, that a video game can turn a grown man into a murderer? And, if so, where's the research to support that? There isn't any. It's bad enough that some critics will reflexively point the finger at video games when a 15-year-old commits a violent act. It's indefensible to blame games for the actions of a man in his mid-20's.

Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at

Tags: ThePoliticalGame

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Undertaker @ May 25th 2007 10:48AM

Again dennis you prove exactly why people like thompson, larouche and all there ILK, need to be countered proactivly by the Industry, up to an including slander lawsuits.

Enough is enough, this BS has got to end. After 18, if someone shoots someone, any mention of games in the story should be an AUTOMATIC lawsuit.

THe industry should propose a new law. "The Truth in Media violence coverage Law", stating that any station, regardless of standing must fact check any claims made by quests on there show unless specificly stated as opinion, and also that anyone in violation of this rule will pay 50 grand to the industry and be forced to offer a full apology on AIR, or even require industry representation at any newcast that so much as mentions games.

That would put a stop to this bull shit.

They wanna try and pass the "Truth in ratings" Bs, lets turn it on them by aiming it right back at them. How bout "Truth in politics" act, which states that any one holding government office will be held accountable for any fraudulent statements they make, even in ignorance, up to and including being removed from office.

I bet that should shut them up fast now wouldn't it.

sheppy @ May 25th 2007 12:13PM

That's a brilliant idea, Undertaker.

Protect freedom of speech for one group by taking it away from another... moron.

Nightwng2000 @ May 25th 2007 12:41PM

Sheppy,
What's moronic about requiring those holier-than-thou authority figures (such as politicians) to be held to the same high "moral" standards that they expect everyone else to be held to? If they are going to hold office, then they should be required to tell the Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth, as one would in a court of law.

I, myself, have suggested that before any politician can speak in a hearing on a bill or create a bill or sponsor a bill, they must pass a questionaire of 100 or so questions regarding the issue the bill governs. Failure to receive a passing grade requires the politician to be denied the ability to have any authority of creation or formal speaking (as opposed to providing personal opinions in interviews, for example) regarding said bill on grounds of "Ignorance and/or Incompetence of Issue".

As to the article, there have been many other events where one would think massacre chasers and agenda seekers/users alike would have used the "video games are to blame" chant. I believe I mentioned to Dennis a year or two ago in an email about the shooting of a police officer local to where I live by a young man (in his twenties). At the time, Dennis said the guy was probably too old. Yet, these days, that "max age" seems to have grown somewhat.

Sometimes, even events that occur at or near a school seem to also receive little attention from the "game blame" crowd.

Maybe they're throwing darts at maps and then checking for recent events to blame and the lesser reported cases are being overlooked when the dart doesn't hit near those cities.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Brakkos @ May 25th 2007 12:39PM

The problem here is not really the videogames, because is that the case, them we have to blame the artists and the music industry,also the television and the movie industry. No this is not videogames fault, the blame should go to society and to the parents how are the ones to enforce a correct education and morals to their sons.
We need to find the right factors that induce these violent behavior, not use the videogames as an easy escape-goose, that's a cheap excuse for the problem. Finally, is so easy to get a gun in this country, maybe we should begin to go toward that way if we want to resolve this.

Viridium @ May 25th 2007 12:45PM

Once again, correlation doesn't imply causality. Someone with a violent personality and violent tendencies is going to naturally be drawn to games like this. Did they become violent after playing these games? No - I'd argue that violent game playing is a symptom, not a cause.

Judd @ May 25th 2007 12:47PM

I think politicians know that the younger generation doesn't vote as much. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2004.html
So to get votes from the soccer moms they need to blame the youth.

I mean it has happened in every generation. "The Great Gatsby" encouraged people to drink during the Prohibition, Rock music encouraged sex and drugs, and rap music encouraged violence. Parents will always blame things they don't understand on what is popular among the youth.

See politicians are dumb for two reasons. One is what I just stated, using a scapegoat for society's problems on the youth. But the other is that video games aren't even a youth hobby! If you were ten when Super Mario Bros. came out you'd be in your 30's. If you were ten when Pong came out you'd be in your mid-40's. I mean do people still believe that once you "grow up", get your degree, work a full time job, have a wife and children you stop playing video games?

robert @ May 25th 2007 12:48PM

haha... he said "truth in politics" with a straight face

XGamerX @ May 25th 2007 12:56PM

Sadly it will never end. I remember the whole mess over mortal kombat many years ago.(lol) I agree with capcom though. As the graphics get better im worried that more and more people are going to join on the censorship wagon.

http://gamergeddon.com/

Justin @ May 25th 2007 1:00PM

Lies are not protected speech sheppy. If the newscasters state something as fact they NEED to check those facts. That's not taking speech away from anyone, it's only holding people accountable for their speech. You'd see that if you weren't so bent on flaming. Undertaker is absolutely correct. It's about time we started fighting the misinformation about games at their source.

sheppy @ May 25th 2007 1:00PM

@Brakkos

"the blame should go to society and to the parents how are the ones to enforce a correct education and morals to their sons."

Another limited idea. As Chris Rock once said "What happened to crazy?" If we start trying to analyze the factors that lead to violent behavior, the only thing we come up with is damaging stereotypes. Then, how have we progressed beyond the blame game when all we've done is change the rules a little? You can find common themes and threads. A fair amount of them were atheist or agnostic. But then also a couple were Christian. When Padukah happened, before Columbine, the scare was "beware the Atheist." After Columbine, it was trenchcoats. If we dig deeper, we often find child who felt isolated from others and picked on. This same kind of pattern is what attracted so many to online games like WOW, where someone can be a part of a community without the usual judgements (which can lead to addiction). Suddenly we're back at saying gamers are the killers again.

"We need to find the right factors that induce these violent behavior,"

People ARE violent. Period. It's the laws of society and the fear of reprisals that keeps our more violent people in check. How many spouses are beaten (despite stereotypes, men are just as likely to be abused as women... men just tend to try and hide it more)? Is marriage the cause of this violence? The human race, for the large part, still operates on basic human instinct. Fight or flight. The right factors just happens to be someone just being a violent person. I mean, hell, watch kids play. Children are, I'm convinced, inherently devious bastards who's fear only of discipline keep majority of them "as angels." And children are the blank slate to human behavior. Scrub it down to our very core, that's what we are. And while violence can be escalated by society influences, it's there to begin with.

"Finally, is so easy to get a gun in this country, maybe we should begin to go toward that way if we want to resolve this."

Considering the beatings, baseball bats, knifes, and even canes used in everyday violence, limiting the access to guns would not stop the violence. Merely deflect it to another means. You forget, Klebold and Harris planted BOMBS. How do we stop that shit? Limit the amount of propane tanks someone can buy? A prepare usage card issued to every griller? You're taking everybot the easy, answerless route the politicians you abhor take.

@Nightwing2000

"What's moronic about requiring those holier-than-thou authority figures (such as politicians) to be held to the same high "moral" standards that they expect everyone else to be held to? If they are going to hold office, then they should be required to tell the Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth, as one would in a court of law."

Politics are lies. To hold office is to feed on a common fear. I mean, despite Christianity holding the largest influence within the US government than any other factor, a huge amount of people voted for Bush just because they feared Christians were losing influence.

But then the question that arises is, if we are expecting them to back up their evidence, how do we back up ours? Nothing is solid fact yet, nor can it ever be.

Sarge @ May 25th 2007 1:22PM

Wait, so atheists or religion CAN be an underlying cause, but not games, unless they're under 18? That's the most patently absurd thing I've ever heard.

Many forms of media can have as much an impact as religion, or lack thereof. I don't like singling out games, as it can be a confluence of movies, books, music, and games. The fact remains though that gaming CAN have both positive and negative impacts.

This also means we have lots of people with violent tendencies, apparently, judging from the sales of these games (and movies, music, etc.). How many copies of GTA have been sold, again?

vidGuy @ May 25th 2007 1:36PM

The blame game is silly, but like anything else, video game violence will eventually be forgotten and some new "threat" will take its place. In 30 years, all of the people running this country will have grown up with video games. They may not have played, but someone they know did. The point is, as much as music was blamed for moral decline in the 60s-80s, does any of that music sound like it is ruining our kids' hearts now?

The question: "how old is too old". The answer: "conception". Unless a violent person does not have the legal capacity to think for himself or herself, the only person/thing to blame for the act is the actor. No amount of media saturation is going to make someone do something they weren't already predisposed to doing.

Sheppy, post 10 is the most intelligent thing I've seen from you. I agree about the violent nature of man (maybe why I love the theme of Fight Club so much), but I don't understand your blanket statements about politics and Christianity. Care to elaborate?

AssemblyLineHuman @ May 25th 2007 2:06PM

I'm sick of this debate. Why do we deny so fervently that violence in media causes violence in society? Does it not make sense that repeated exposure to violence with positive reenforcement could affect the way that people view it? I hate to use this clichéd example, but isn't the media a large part of how Hitler convinced a nation to be complacent during the Holocaust?

That shouldn't even be the focus of the debate. The problem with the argument of the other side is that they are operating under the fundamental assumption that the First Amendment only applies to speech that has a positive effect on society, and that's WRONG. If I write a book that describes in detail why population control through mass murder is a good thing and I convince a lot of people, that's part of the cost of free speech. The reason we don't see instances of that rising up everywhere is because an inherent part of free speech is debate, and there would be enough people opposed to my absurd ideas that the general public would not follow me.

sheppy @ May 25th 2007 2:40PM

@Justin

Normally I would agree some FACT checking is in order but, truth be told, aside from the VT Rampage game and the whole "banning sales" rant, majority of the political stance CAN be proved. Just like it can be shot down by the same report. Fact is, we just don't know. Just like Global Warming alarmists, they are using preliminary data, twisting it, and using it as solid fact when the turth of the matter is that it is far too young of a science to guage. Case in point? The influence of violence in media.

We can definately prove that, to certain people, violence does influence them and increase aggressiveness. This is undebatable. To everyone, aggressive natured games do have an impact. For most, it's not lasting. This is proven 100% by every study done. No one is unaffected. And yes, this is even in the studies that the industry uses in their own defense. We also know violent people gravitate towards violent media. So then we are left with the question of "which came first?" And this is 100% an unprovable position. In either way.

So what do you have from politicians? You have them using this information to form their opinion and their platform. It's NOT misinformation and it's NOT lies because it has been stated as truth in their reports. And these same reports WE use in our defense are every bit as inconclusive as theirs. So when Undertaker stated we should fine these politicians for stating "facts," video game proponents are left on just as precarious as a position. So their platform is stating violent video games effect children. Our platform states strong family environments and proper parenting can remove this issue. Once again, this can be proven as fact.

So when Hillary Clinton gets on a rant about how Klebold and Harris played Doom so it's a negative effect on our children, how can she be fined? Both statements have been proven true. And more importantly, both statements are not held in the court of law, so these statements are taken as a freedom of expression. Meanwhile, we are trying to defend our position of freedom of expression. And his solution is punishing opposing views? I feel such a position puts gamers precariously close to burning the witches. Video gamers, in this particular political era, need to take an active role, certainly. But not at the expense of jumping to the same wildly off mark conclusions as our opponents. And that's why I said what I said.

Personally, I fear for the influence the war in Iraq will have on our youth. Children watching their older brothers and sisters going off to war. And say what you want, war changes people. They are never the same afterwards. I don't think we should pull out or anything but I do believe the war in Iraq has a much more profound influence on our youth than Rockstar Games could ever hope to achieve.

@Sarge

Way to miss the forest for the trees. My statement is that, as we try to dig down to find the reasons behind the killings, what we find are red herrings. A Red Herring, like this child played video games or was a christian/atheist, is hardly a universal platform. Many people state it's a lack of faith that brings about these events, and then we get a christian killer and the position shifts to "oh, well he's just fucked up." The fact that our killers SOMETIMES play video games is as common as saying "he listens to the radio" or "she had a myspace journal." I merely mentioned the atheist angle because, before Columbine and the Trenchcoat Mafia (a fairly common catchphrase for those kinds of social circles nationwide), we were looking for Video Games and a lack of faith.

@vidguy

I don't really want to turn this into a religious debate. AIM me sometime (sheppyboy2000) and I can elaborate.

mini keg @ May 25th 2007 2:55PM

not that I condone violence being blamed on video games, because I really don't. You made the choice to shoot someone, you are responsible for the consequences, whatever they may be.
However, I heard one troubled teen (13 I believe) make a statement, that really made me think. He shot his school principle and a student, one in the abdomen, and the other in the shoulder. The principle died from his injuries. The boy said he never meant to kill anyone... He'd seen people get shot in the stomach on tv and video games all the time... and they don't die, and in video games, it often takes more than one shot to kill someone.
This is where the line blurs. What video games don't show (and again, not that they should) is that even though the player doesn't die right away with one shot, in real life, he could, and probably will. Maybe not right away, but a shot in the abdomen is serious, as is any bullet wound.
I can see how kids (and note KIDS... not adults 18+) could be confused by this. I mean, didn't 50 cent get shot like 9 times, once in the face, and still live? Mix what our kids see on television with what some violent games not appropriate for their age group portray and you have a recipe for disaster.

Flipside @ May 25th 2007 3:15PM

I think the thing is that no-one is saying that the content of these games isn't unsuitable for those who are not prepared for it, that's what the ratings are for, to help a parent make an informed decision about the content. If a game is rated M, you can be pretty certain that the content is not going to be fit for little 12-year old Adrian.

I'll agree that all media has a desensitising effect, however, among 95% of the population, this is not a problem, you don't have to go far back into history to realise that growing up and seeing unpleasant things is not only the case for most of our existence, but is actually neccessary for our development. A kitten isn't exposed to any violent media at all, and yet will still grow up into a hunter.

Desensitisation is not the same thing as a loss of moral compass, indeed, it's not just soliders that go through 'desensitisation', Policemen, Medics, Firemen, Disaster helpers etc, they all have to cope with scenes of horror, yet these people do not have a particular history of going on rampages.

So, it's not really about regulation, it's about singling out video games and trying to blame them for something out of convenience.

Flipside @ May 25th 2007 3:27PM

Oh, and just to add, people are aware of what is fantasy and reality, a Fireman can play violent video games all day without a problem, and yet, when faced with a particuarly horrific car crash, break down in tears. The reason for this is because, regardless of desensitisation, the brain can tell the difference between 'make believe' and 'real'. In the few that cannot tell the difference, the problem is not computer games.

MG Midget @ May 25th 2007 3:40PM

The ESA lists the average gamers age as 33. If anything it means one could open up the "blame games" argument even further.

Revo @ May 25th 2007 4:44PM

"On the other hand, Amish school shooter Charles Roberts, also deeply disturbed, was 32. Not a peep was heard about video games in that case."

Well, gee, I wonder why... maybe because he was AMISH?! You really didn't think that one through, did you?

Rubang B @ May 25th 2007 7:19PM

Some people can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. When somebody has this problem, anything can make them do something crazy. If somebody has this problem, and they see Wile E. Coyote fall off a cliff and they laugh and then jump off a cliff, do we blame Chuck Jones and Warner Bros? No, we blame whoever was in charge of making sure this person didn't run outside alone.

When that kid shot hits principal, was it the fault of movies/games/cartoons/comics/whatever or the fault of whoever left a gun out for him to find?

If the person is under 18, blame the parents, and if they are over 18, blame THEM. It's that easy. Nice article Dennis.

Undertaker @ May 25th 2007 7:27PM

@sheepy

As others have said I was pointing out the Hypocracy of politicans to try and ban games when the news media, tv, movies, and others are as bad if not worse, a fact that has been key to the defeat of many video game laws. Also, I was pointing out the fact that the industry does not activly challange or counter many of the attacks made against it in anyway.

The Point, is that the only way to gain equality in my opinion, would be to turn there own arguments against them. When faced with having to deal with there own form of possible censorship and punishment, they would be keen to drop there efforts against games in short order.

Maybe my sarcasam was over your head, or my poor spelling abilities made it hard to comprehend. I can understand that.

But don't go insulting me when the fact is I'm the only one who seems to see the stupidity of the industry for not being wiling to stand up for itself.

Ace of Sevens @ May 25th 2007 11:25PM

Revo, Charles Roberts wasn't Amish. The people he shot were Amish.

XesBOX @ May 29th 2007 2:52PM

What portion of the activists are actually long term gamers? What portion of them are religiously defined?

Video Game violence is an easy target because games are designed with goals in mind. They present challenges and obsticles while leaving it up to the player to determine the best course of action. This is where the idea that a violent video game encourages violence within the player.

Generally speaking, the more of an evangelical believer you are, the more you believe people are succeptable to sin (or commiting sin). Considering the fact that ZERO of these active persuers in the realm of video game violence have put any real hours into these games, it's easy to see why they would be so fearful, angry, and hateful. You have the immediate logical connection (which is, honestly, rather accurate) of violence in the game begetting violent tendencies in the player coupled with the ignorance regarding the psychological (among other) effects these games really have.

Misdirection; What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.