• by Josh Lovison , April 20, 2007

This past Monday bore witness to a horrific event, when a Virginia Tech student killed more than 30 other students and professors. Such a massive and sudden loss of life in a setting intended to be one of safety and growth is absolutely worthy of personal reflection and sorrow. Unfortunately, this tragic event, like others in the past, has also been seen as a prime opportunity for politicization.

There are a number of reasons for this politicization. For some, it might be a desire to understand why such an event could have occurred. For others, it might be a desire to prevent such an event from occurring in the future. For still others, it might just be a desire to seek the spotlight. Or perhaps a combination of all three. Regardless of the motivations, the rhetoric seems to stay the same: a call for greater gun control; questions why the signs weren't caught before it was too late; an examination of the quality of parenting; and of course, claims that violent media -- specifically video games -- might have influenced the shooter.

The other issues I can't speak to, and they are better discussed in another forum. But I would like to take a moment to address the violent video game claim, and to better illustrate it, I will talk about moths. Moths are generally considered to be a bad thing. When I see moths, I always see them fluttering around light bulbs. Obviously, light bulbs cause moths, and as a result, we clearly need to enact legislation clamping down on the interior lighting industry if we want to curb the moth problem.

Hopefully the logical fallacy is clear, and no one will throw out their light bulbs. My point is that correlation does not equate cause. A far more likely scenario than playing video games causing mass killers is that someone so obsessed with violence and death would seek out any media that relates to it -- like a moth to a flame.

The problem is, millions of normal, well-adjusted individuals play and enjoy video games. They play when bored and when stressed; they even organize social events around games. And they really don't like being compared to individuals responsible for heinous acts, solely on a common form of recreation. In fact, according to an FBI report on school shooters, potential shooters focus not on enjoyment of the game itself, but primarily on a constant exposure to violent stimuli (page 20), whether video games, movies, literature, or torturing the neighborhood cat. It's also worth noting that in the entire 52-page report video games are mentioned exactly once.

Only hours after the events on Monday, before the identity of the shooter was even known, video games were being mentioned as the primary influencing factor behind the shootings. From Fox News, to Jack Thompson -- the systematic rabble rouser on the topic -- to Dr. Phil, all levied charges against video games. And I'd be willing to wager that in the near future there will be some government figure pointing a finger and pushing for a bill regulating this "threat."

On a final note, I find it interesting that mainstream news so willingly provides a pedestal for condemnation of video games as desensitizing agents, when so many games are firmly based in fantasy. In fact, there may be more common means of desensitization -- something like, oh, broadcasting a video of shots being fired and presumably ending the lives of college students, and then immediately staging "debates" over blame; or shoving mikes in the faces of shaken students who just walked out of a classroom where only 12% survived, and then intermixing between this "content" commercial messaging. Perhaps before being so quick to examine others, those in the mainstream should spend some time introspectively. Besides, it seems some quiet introspection is a more appropriate activity after these unfortunate events, anyhow.