Mahatma Gandhi said that he objects to violence because even when it is perceived to do good, the good caused by violence is temporary; however, the damage created by violence is permanent. Violence is one of the most common issues in the United States and the world. Millions of people have experienced violence which comes in different shapes and forms. In severe cases, others have lost their lives to violent crimes worldwide. There are many speculations about the causes of violence, and people hold different perceptions of the causes of violence. Over recent years, many politicians and other groups have pointed their fingers at video games, citing the games as one of the main reasons gun violence has been on the rise in the United States. Gun violence and other forms of violence have been linked to games such as GTA. However, these assumptions are misplaced since games do not inspire violence. This paper will argue that video games are not responsible for the recent increase in gun violence in the US but assert that violence is a choice.
Video games do not promote real-life violence since the relationship between the sales of video games and the increase in Violent juvenile crime rates does not correlate. For instance, in the United States of America in 2019, the country spent more than $5 billion on video game-related materials such as software, hardware, and other accessories, even though youth crime rates have been at a historic low of 50% since 2007 (Puzzanchera 1). The number of high school students who were involved in fights at school decreased by more than half between the years 2001 and 2019, while at the same time, the market for video games experienced a significant uptick over the same period. According to the research of Villani et al. (530), Young brains children have a greater propensity to mimic or imitate the imaginary violence they see in video games when they encounter it in real life. Villani ultimately argues that video games trigger violent tendencies. However, when one considers the statistics that link video game sales to the number of juvenile offenses and conflicts that occur in schools, it is clear that young people’s minds are positively stimulated by playing video games. Instead of encouraging violent behavior, the games foster stronger character and personality.
Video games are not responsible for the recent increase in violent cases in the sense that data from different studies suggest that no concrete evidence supports the allegation. Over the years, many studies have sought to establish a connection between playing violent video games and engaging in other sorts of violent behavior; however, none of these attempts has been entirely successful. According to reports, 2100 young players participated in the research that linked aggressive tendencies to video games (Hern 2020). The outcomes of the meta-analysis indicated that prolonged exposure to video games by adolescents did not have any discernible impact on the levels of hostility and aggression they displayed. Even brief exposure to violent content, such as shooting zombies in video games, might eventually significantly affect temperament and lead to aggressive tendencies, according to a common rebuttal to the claim that violent video games contribute to an increase in real-world aggression. On the other hand, this argument is based entirely on speculation because there is no proof to back it up. According to Hern (1), the claim that playing violent video games may cause one’s temper to become more easily agitated, which may, in turn, lead to more aggressive inclinations, is not supported by any evidence.
Violent video games have been linked to increased aggression but not violence. According to Gunter (120), competitive video games or sports like American football can also cause aggressiveness, implying that video games are not the only source of aggression, which can occasionally lead to violence. According to Gunter (122), many games impact aggression, and video games have a minor impact on inciting hostility or violence. Many lawmakers have blamed video games for these tragedies due to the high frequency of mass shootings in the United States. Politicians contend that violent video games frequently feature in games and are responsible for shooting occurrences. However, a study conducted in the nation indicates that violence and animosity can be sparked by any competitive game, not just video games, contradicting the statements made by American politicians. Taking everything into account, it is evident that video games do not globally contribute to violence but are frequently made the scapegoat by politicians that do not want to accept responsibility and reduce violence.
While video games do not contribute to violence, they are frequently blamed by politicians and other people who do not want to address their root causes. According to Timm (1), prominent figures in the political system in the United States, such as former president Donald Trump, point the finger of blame at violent video games as the primary source of the problem. On the other hand, these politicians were using video games as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the primary cause of violence in the United States, which is the availability of guns and the ease with which unlicensed firearms can be obtained. The availability of guns and the ease with which unlicensed firearms can be obtained is a major contributor to the problem. The argument put up by Donald Trump and other politicians is that even though the United States has had access to firearms for decades, there have been no incidents of widespread gun violence before the invention of video games that instruct children and teenagers on how to kill. According to Trump, the bulk of mass shootings in the United States were caused by people playing the video game “Call of Duty” (Timm 1). On the other hand, these claims have been debunked by the research, which demonstrates that there is no correlation between playing violent video games and acting violently in real life. Instead of placing blame on individuals or groups, governments need to focus on limiting access to firearms to stop incidents of mass shootings.
Violent games do not promote violence in the real world since most players can distinguish between virtual violence and acceptable behavior in the real world. When a video game is over, children and teenagers return to the real world and are no longer influenced by it. This is because, by the time most children are eight years old, they can differentiate between fact, fiction, and fantasy (Emmons 1). This demonstrates that at the age of ten, all gamers know that the game’s environment is fictional and can use logic after playing. According to Bajovic (170), children and teenagers who play violent video games are more likely to have impaired moral reasoning skills than those who do not play these games. This is in comparison to those who do not play these games. The claim is incorrect because children are essentially subjected to violence throughout their childhood through the viewing of cartoon films such as Tom and Jerry. The violence kids witness does not always correspond to a situation that exists in the actual world.
Video games, like other forms of media such as movies, give young people the opportunity to learn about the consequences of violent behavior, which encourages them to strengthen their moral compass and ultimately results in less violence (Salonius-Pasternak and Gelfond 10). Children gain useful life experiences through the medium of video games by being familiar with moral and societal issues such as death, conflict, and violent behavior. Gentile (8) argues in his discussion of the role video games play in promoting violence that because players are rewarded for using violence effectively, violent games encourage fighting and violence as a method of resolving conflicts. This is because players are rewarded for using violence effectively in the game. According to Gentile (2014), people’s moral character can be affected when they earn benefits for engaging in unethical behavior. However, many war-related video games require the player to take on the role of a soldier on one of the contending sides of a conflict. This helps the player have a better understanding of the effects of violence and war. These occurrences heighten gamers’ awareness of the potentially harmful impacts of violence and encourage them to avoid engaging in violent behavior in their everyday lives.
Video games do not promote violence, but on the contrary, they can have a positive impact on children’s attitudes and perceptions of life. Different studies suggest that video games Influence gamers’ personalities positively. According to Grizzard et al. (500), playing video games can have a positive impact on a child’s civic involvement as well as their social skills. According to Grizzard’s theory, playing violent video games can arouse feelings of guilt, which can be an essential component in developing a more altruistic mindset, which is advantageous in the real world. Beck et al. (3016) argue that playing video games that depict violence against women and girls can contribute to negative attitudes as well as actual acts of violence against women. Beck et al. (3018) assert that prolonged exposure to depictions of sexual violence in media, such as video games and other forms of entertainment, can lead to an increase in the number of instances of rape. The viewpoint expressed by Beck is not supported by the evidence. It has been demonstrated that when adolescents are made aware of the brutality of violence, they go on to develop more altruistic behaviors. Additionally, video games facilitate the development of friendships, particularly among young people, because of the naturally collaborative mindset that they adopt when playing multiplayer games.
Video games are not promoting violence in the community, but rather the games are used to address the violent tendencies of people. According to (Timm 1), people generally become more aggressive and violent, and games are just used as a scapegoat. Contrary to what many people may believe, video games play a crucial role in controlling the playing a crucial role in controlling cases of violence since video games act as an outlet for bottled aggression resulting in a more relaxed population. According to González (48), video games also allow gamers to participate in activities that they would not do In real life, and the sense of freedom allows gamers to feel more relaxed, resulting in reduced aggression that triggers violence. Golding & Fitzgerald (20) argue that males, who are the largest faction of gamers, are more likely to depict violent tendencies towards women in the digital space, which gaming has become a major part of. However, the counteragent can easily be refuted since online gaming distracts people from such tendencies resulting in less engagement with other violent people in the digital space.
In conclusion, video games do not promote violence, but the idea has been peddled by people who do not truly understand how the games work. Video games and other forms of fantasy-based entertainment are already commonplace hobbies, particularly for younger children. Numerous research has been carried out to discover whether or not playing violent video games has any adverse effects on the people who play them; nevertheless, no evidence ties playing violent video games to violent tendencies. The common occurrence of violent behavior in the neighborhood. It is affected by additional factors, such as access to firearms. There appears to be no link between playing violent video games and acting violently in real life, according to statistics that compare the number of violent video games sold to the number of violent crimes committed by teenagers. Instead, has a greater influence on both prosocial conduct and the spirit of teamwork. Even though Video games may have other negative impacts on their players, it is clear that these games do not inspire violence.
Alex Hern. “Playing Video Games Doesn’t Lead to Violent Behaviour, Study Shows.” The Guardian, 22 July 2020, www.theguardian.com/games/2020/jul/22/playing-video-games-doesn’t-lead-to-violent-behavior-study-shows.
Bajovic, Mirjana. “Violent video gaming and moral reasoning in adolescents: is there an association?” Educational Media International, vol. 50, no. 3, 2013, pp. 177–191.
Beck, Victoria S., et al. “Violence Against Women in Video Games.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 27, no. 15, 2012, pp. 3016–3031.
Douglas A. Gentile, Media Violence and Children: A Complete Guide for Parents and Professionals, 2014
Emmons, S. Is media violence damaging to kids? (2013). CNN. com.
Golding, Paul, and Hiram E. Fitzgerald. “The early biopsychosocial development of boys and the origins of violence in males.” Infant mental health journal 40.1 2019: 5–22.
González, Carina Soledad González, Nazaret Gómez del Río, and Vicente Navarro Adelantado. “Exploring the benefits of using gamification and videogames for physical exercise: a review of state of art.” IJIMAI 5.2 (2018): 46-52.
Grizzard, Matthew, et al. “Being Bad in a Video Game Can Make Us Morally Sensitive.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, vol. 17, no. 8, 2014, pp. 499-504.
Gunter, B. Does playing video games make players more violent? Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
Jane C. Timm. “Fact Check: Trump Suggests Video Games Blame for Mass Shootings.” NBC News, 5 Aug. 2019, www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-suggests-video-games-blame-mass-shootings-n1039411.
Puzzanchera, C. The decline in arrests of juveniles continued through 2019. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. URL: https://www. Up. Gov/library/publications/decline-arrests-juveniles-continued-through-2019 [accessed 2020-11-02], 1.
Salonius-Pasternak, Dorothy E., and Holly S. Gelfond. “The Next Level of Research on Electronic Play: Potential Benefits and Contextual Influences for Children and Adolescents.” Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, vol. 1, no. 1, 2005, pp. 5-22.
Villani, V. S., et al. “Media Literacy for Clinicians and Parents.” Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, vol. 14, no. 3, 2005, pp. 523–553.