banning online games essay

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Should Violent Video-Games Be Banned?

With the recent spurt of highly publicised killings, the debate about violence and video games has again taken the spotlight. Many stakeholders and institutions believe that playing violent video games is morally and ethically objectionable as it leads to contribution and promotion of violence. In this essay I would be looking at the general objections being raised by such stakeholders and also subject these criticisms to the test of various juridprudential tests. I would be focussing on the deontological and utilitarian approach to understand these objections as raised. Furthermore, I have tried to study the structure of modern day video games looking at the root question of whether such a link between violence and video games exist or not? The last question being presented is whether such video games should merely be regulated or banned, and would it curtail freedom of speech. Methodology The methodology followed by the researcher is a doctrinal one, in which the researcher relies...

Related Papers

Shaun Rattue

Video Games

Jacqui Taylor

Erica Neely

Many people have discussed ethics and video games. Thus far the focus has been on two elements: the actions players take within a game and whether certain kinds of games are wrong to create, such as extremely violent video games. Taking Miguel Sicart’s work as a key starting place, I emphasize the moral importance of choice with respect to video games. This has several components. Focusing on single-player games, I consider gameplay choices that players make, such as how to complete a particular mission in a game and how the game evaluates and adapts to player choices in a way that attempts to impose and/or encourage a particular moral stance. Much literature focuses specifically on gameplay as the interactive component that makes video games a unique medium. However, I stress that we must also consider the choices designers make when they program a game; these choices can frequently go unnoticed and unquestioned by players. As such, while I agree with those who emphasize that players are capable of moral reflection, I question how often they actually engage in moral reflection. This suggests that there is room for pragmatic concern about how actual players – not ideal players – are affected by video games.

Philosophy Compass

C. Thi Nguyen

What is a game? What are we doing when we play a game? What is the value of playing games? Several different philosophical sub disciplines have attempted to answer these questions using very distinctive frameworks. Some have approached games as something like a text, deploying theoretical frameworks from the study of narrative, fiction, and rhetoric to interrogate games for their representational content. Others have approached games as artworks and asked questions about the authorship of games, about the ontology of the work and its performance. Yet others, from the philosophy of sport, have focused on normative issues of fairness, rule application, and competition. The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of several different philosophical approaches to games and, hopefully, demonstrate the relevance and value of the different approaches to each other. Early academic attempts to cope with games tried to treat games as a subtype of narrative and to interpret games exactly as one might interpret a static, linear narrative. A faction of game studies, self‐described as “ludologists,” argued that games were a substantially novel form and could not be treated with traditional tools for narrative analysis. In traditional narrative, an audience is told and interprets the story, where in a game, the player enacts and creates the story. Since that early debate, theorists have attempted to offer more nuanced accounts of how games might achieve similar ends to more traditional texts. For example, games might be seen as a novel type of fiction, which uses interactive techniques to achieve immersion in a fictional world. Alternately, games might be seen as a new way to represent causal systems, and so a new way to criticize social and political entities. Work from contemporary analytic philosophy of art has, on the other hand, asked questions whether games could be artworks and, if so, what kind. Much of this debate has concerned the precise nature of the artwork, and the relationship between the artist and the audience. Some have claimed that the audience is a cocreator of the artwork, and so games are a uniquely unfinished and cooperative art form. Others have claimed that, instead, the audience does not help create the artwork; rather, interacting with the artwork is how an audience member appreciates the artist's finished production. Other streams of work have focused less on the game as a text or work, and more on game play as a kind of activity. One common view is that game play occurs in a “magic circle.” Inside the magic circle, players take on new roles, follow different rules, and actions have different meanings. Actions inside the magic circle do not have their usual consequences for the rest of life. Enemies of the magic circle view have claimed that the view ignores the deep integration of game life from ordinary life and point to gambling, gold farming, and the status effects of sports. Philosophers of sport, on the other hand, have approached games with an entirely different framework. This has lead into investigations about the normative nature of games—what guides the applications of rules and how those rules might be applied, interpreted, or even changed. Furthermore, they have investigated games as social practices and as forms of life.

Ethics and Information Technology

Matt McCormick

Many people have a strong intuition that there is something morallyobjectionable about playing violent video games, particularly withincreases in the number of people who are playing them and the games'alleged contribution to some highly publicized crimes. In this paper,I use the framework of utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethicaltheories to analyze the possibility that there might be some philosophicalfoundation for these intuitions. I raise the broader question of whetheror not participating in authentic simulations of immoral acts in generalis wrong. I argue that neither the utilitarian, nor the Kantian hassubstantial objections to violent game playing, although they offersome important insights into playing games in general and what it ismorally to be a ``good sport.'' The Aristotelian, however, has a plausibleand intuitive way to protest participation in authentic simulations ofviolent acts in terms of character: engaging in simulated immoral actserodes one's character and makes it more difficult for one to live afulfilled eudaimonic life.

Shawn Doherty

Reasoning .07 .06 Emotional Stability .18 .11 Rule Consciousness -.27* -.21 Utilitarian versus Personal Focus -.10 -.05

Stephanie Patridge

In this paper, I consider a particular amoralist challenge against those who would morally criticize our single-player video play, viz., “come on, it’s only a game!” The amoralist challenge with which I engage gains strength from two facts: the activities to which the amoralist lays claim are only those that do not involve interactions with other rational or sentient creatures, and the amoralist concedes that there may be extrinsic, consequentialist considerations that support legitimate moral criticisms. I argue that the amoralist is mistaken and that there are non-consequentialist resources for morally evaluating our single-player game play. On my view, some video games contain details that anyone who has a proper understanding of and is properly sensitive to features of a shared moral reality will see as having an incorrigible social meaning that targets groups of individuals, e.g., women and minorities. I offer arguments to support the claim that there are such incorrigible social meanings and that they constrain the imaginative world so that challenges like “it’s only a game” lose their credibility. I also argue that our responses to such meanings bear on evaluations of our character, and in light of this fact video game designers have a duty to understand and work against the meanings of such imagery.

David Waddington

Jeffrey Earp , Francesca Pozzi

This paper reports on a literature review investigating the main ethically-related themes appearing in the academic literature on digital games, and considers their connections with games and learning, identity development, and the construction of personal beliefs. The themes explored include how videogames can shape players' attitudes or encourage the development of ethical (or unethical) behaviours (like aggression, to mention just one example), the treatment of personal and social identity, positive and negative effects concerning interaction processes in digital gaming circles, and the use of exploitative game mechanics intended to increase player engagement. These questions are explored by drawing on and updating a broadly based literature review that was carried out within the H2020 project Gaming Horizons. As well as reporting on those themes from an academic viewpoint, this paper offers some indications of both a theoretical and practical nature that may prove useful to a variety of game-world stakeholders, including game developers and marketers, researchers, educators and teachers, policy makers, and gaming enthusiasts of various kinds.

Games and Culture

Mahli-Ann Butt

The presence of women within videogames has progressed to a state where narratives about the empowerment of women are becoming popular; however, such games still invite a number of gendered stereotypes. Housed in the genre of adventure games, The Walking Dead: Season Two and Life Is Strange appear to follow in the spirit of this emerging women’s revolution but inevitably reestablish traditional presentations of sexism in the treatment of their endings. In particular, the presentation of the infamous Trolley Problem and its inherent utilitarian framework is an incendiary moment wherein these games mark rebellious women as necessary sacrifices for the greater good and the continuation of the community. This article explores these two specific moments of sacrifice at the conclusions of Life Is Strange and The Walking Dead: Season Two and engages with tensions between the status quo and the resistances that challenges these norms.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Helen Ryland

Lucy Sparrow , Martin Gibbs , Michael Arnold

Philosophical Inquiry in Education

Simon Ferrari

Monique Wonderly

Tieja Thomas

Tae Wan Kim

Declan Humphreys

Mark Coeckelbergh

Emil Hammar

Computers in Human Behavior

Monica Whitty

Nicholas Bowman

Doctoral thesis

Cultural Studies of Science Education (Print), v. 7, p. 909-943

Charbel N El-Hani

2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Lucy Sparrow

ISBN: 978-1-84888-438-0 First published in the United Kingdom in eBook format in 2016. First Edition

Alexia Bhéreur-Lagounaris , Brittany Kuhn , Declan Humphreys , Vince Vader , René Schallegger , Some Douche , Attila Szantner , Bradley McAvoy-James

Sarah Thorne

Giuseppe Riva

Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds

James W Malazita

The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies (Media Studies Futures is volume 6)

Mia Consalvo

Victoria L Rubin

Kat Schrier

america hernandez america hernandez

Robert Fleet

Laureline Chiapello

Rethinking History - Challenge the past

Jan-Hendrik Heinrichs

Bruno Mendes da Silva

Jennifer R. Whitson

Rob Gallagher

Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities

Tero Pasanen

Paul Formosa

Yuehua Wu , Vivian Hsueh Hua Chen

Communication Yearbook 37

Bruno Mendes da Silva , Beatriz Isca

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

Allissa V Richardson

Should Violent Video Games Be Banned

Categories: Ethics Video Games

About this sample

Words: 1019 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 1019 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: Philosophy Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2086 words

1 pages / 568 words

2 pages / 947 words

1 pages / 504 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

Students are often asked to write an essay on Banning Violent Video Games in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

Introduction.

Violent video games have been a topic of concern for many. Some believe they can lead to aggressive behavior in children.

Reasons for Banning

Critics argue that violent games can desensitize players to real-world violence, making them more likely to behave aggressively.

Counter-Arguments

However, others argue that such games can provide a safe outlet for natural aggression and have no proven link to real-world violence.

The debate on banning violent video games is complex. It is essential to consider both the potential risks and benefits before making decisions.

250 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

The argument for banning.

Those in favor of banning violent video games posit that they contribute to increased aggression and desensitization to violence. They believe that the interactive nature of video games, where players actively participate in violence, can lead to real-world aggression. This is particularly concerning for young players who may not yet fully differentiate between virtual and real-world consequences.

The Counter-Argument

However, opponents of the ban argue that there is no definitive proof linking video game violence to real-world violence. They contend that millions of people play violent video games without exhibiting aggressive behavior. They further argue that video games, like any form of media, are a form of expression protected by the right to free speech.

While the debate continues, it’s crucial to consider the potential effects of violent video games on individuals and society. A middle-ground approach might be more effective, such as implementing stricter age restrictions and parental controls. This way, the rights of gamers are preserved, while potentially harmful effects on impressionable minds are minimized.

500 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

The debate on whether violent video games should be banned has been a topic of intense discussion among policymakers, psychologists, and the general public. The critical concern is the potential influence these games could have on the behavior of players, especially young people.

The Impact of Violent Video Games

Research has shown that violent video games can have both positive and negative effects on players. On the one hand, they can enhance cognitive skills, decision-making abilities, and hand-eye coordination. Conversely, they are also associated with increased aggression, desensitization to violence, and decreased empathy.

Arguments for Banning Violent Video Games

Counter arguments.

Opponents of the ban, however, argue that it infringes upon freedom of expression and the right to access information. They posit that there is not enough empirical evidence linking violent video games directly to criminal violence. They also argue that parental control, rather than a blanket ban, should be the solution.

The Role of Parental Control

Parental control plays a pivotal role in mitigating the potential negative effects of violent video games. Parents can limit the time their children spend playing these games, monitor the content of the games, and explain the difference between video game violence and real-world consequences. This approach may be more effective than a ban, as it encourages responsible consumption of media.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction: Banning Violent Video Games

Violent video games should not be banned, violent video games should be banned, conclusion: why video games should not be banned.

The essay is an argumentative one; violent games should not be banned. Recently there has been an endless and fierce debate on whether or not to banned violent video games. For instance, the countries that constitute the European Union are planning to ban some of the European games. However, it is the view of the majority of video games, just like any other games, are there to educate and entertain.

Although there are strong reasons brought forth by those who want violent video games to be banned, here are reasons why we should not; increases self-esteem, reduction of pain, encourages teamwork, sharpening players’ wit, among others (Sterngold, 2006).

With regards to those in support of banning the game, they hold the view that the games continuously poison the minds of the viewers, especially young individuals.

It is worth noting that there are indeed strong points that need to be given a second thought before we rush in banning violent video games. It has been argued and even proved that when kids play such games, especially when the multiplayer type of game is available, then the children get to learn at a very early age to work as a teammate, which requires teamwork. Arguably, this is advantageous as it helps in keeping children together in times of need (Lebrilla, 2010).

For this matter, when they grow up, such individuals will be in a better position to be good team players. This concept has been currently deemed very vital in ensuring the success of an organization. Throughout the game, it is indeed tough to beat the opponent.

However, through concentration, acquisition of skills, and knowledge on how to win, which has been learned from each other, children are capable of the emerging winner. With this, they grow, knowing that to win, there is a need to have a team behind them.

As suggested by Bissell, 2008 violent video games have been thought to help, especially those with very high tempers, to release their anger by not hurting anybody. When very angry and one feels like inflicting pain on another human being or even killing others, it has been thought appropriate to transfer such anger to violent video games. When one engages in a shoot-out with an enemy in a video game, he/she might feel that the mission is accomplished.

Aside from assisting young individuals in sharpening their wits and problem-solving skills, violent video game plays a significant role in helping young individuals, even a few older members of society, to learn how to persevere. On the same line of thought, these games have made it possible for people to have well-coordinated hand and eye movements (Craig et al. 2007).

This has helped in making sure that reflex action/response is normal. The advantage of this is that it will play a significant role in keeping progressive illnesses at bay.

Another major point that is in support of violent video games is that it helps in sustaining the country’s economy. It is apparent that the industry of violent video games has played a significant role in the economic growth of the country. The export of the same product to other nations generates foreign income for the country.

Additionally, a good number of Americans derive their daily bread from the same industry(Konijn et al., 2007). For this reason, banning of violent video games will mean that the unemployment rate will go up, and the money generated from the industry will be lost. The industry generates close to 21 billion dollars annually (Jones & Ponton, 2003).

Additionally, doctors have proved that despite violent games being useful; in releasing anger, it is also helpful in helping a patient reduce pain. The current efforts hospitals show this making to install such games. More importantly, the games help entertain the plays as well as the viewers.

Just like when people feel entertained by watching a football match, violent game provide the same to the affected party. Considering the fact that slightly over 70.0% of American teens play these games, if it is banned, then they will indulge in even more risky activities in their quest to be entertained, for instance, drug abuse (Goldstein, 1998).

It would not be rational if the argument that supports the banning of violent games were not brought to light. It has been brought into the violent limelight game that pollutes the minds of American children.

When young individual engages too much in these games, they are addicted. The result is that they will grow up and may put into practice what they saw. A recent incident where a student walked into an institution of learning and started shooting at others, killing them on the spot, has been linked to violent video games (Anderson & Dill, 2000).

Similarly, just like any other thing that can bring addiction, violent video games, when making a young individual addicted, can be detrimental to their quest to learn. This is because most of the time, whenever they are free will, they spend time playing such games (Ferguson, 2008).

Although it has been argued that the game fosters socialization skills, it is evident that when one plays in non-multiplayer support, they grow up being persons with poor skills to socialize.

From the review of the issue of violent games, even though the game is intense, banning it will bring more harm than good. For those who advocate for the banning, it would be rational to critically analyze the benefits of the game to individuals and even society at large. For instance, it enhances teamwork, helps reduce pain, aids in releasing anger, and improves wit and hand-eye coordination, among others.

However, the disadvantages include polluting or poisoning young individuals, and addiction eats their time hence cannot engage actively in other vital activities. This thus warrants careful consideration from relevant stakeholders such as parents and the government.

Anderson, C. & Dill, K. (2000). “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings and Behavior in the Laboratory and In Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78(4):722.

Ferguson, C. (2008). “Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good?”, Review of General Psychology, 14(1): 68-81.

Konijn, E. et al. (2007). “I Wish I Were a Warrior: The Role of Wishful Identification in the Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Adolescent Boys.” Developmental Psychology, 43(1): 1-12.

Craig, A. et al. (2007). Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy . Oxford University: Oxford University Press.

Bissell, T. (2008). Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter . New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Sterngold, A. (2006). “Violent video games.” Web.

Jones, G. & Ponton, L. (2003). Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence . New York: Basic Books. P. 172.

Goldstein, J. (1998). Why We Watch; The Attraction of Violent Entertainment . Oxford University Oxford University Press. P. 188.

Crime and Deviance
Cult Leaders Characteristics
Pros and Cons of Abortion to the Society Argumentative Essay
Political Philosophy: Liberalism and Libertarianism
Enhancement Drugs in Sports Should Be Banned: An Argumentative Paper
Importance of Adopting Children
Stereotypes of American Citizens
Social Care in Ireland
Evaluating the debate between proponents of qualitative and quantitative inquiries
The Effects of Social Networking Sites on an Individual's Life
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 30). Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/

"Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 30 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay'. 30 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." May 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." May 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." May 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

There is no evidence to support these claims that violent media and real-world violence are connected. Photo by kerkezz/Ad...

Christopher J. Ferguson, The Conversation Christopher J. Ferguson, The Conversation

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/analysis-why-its-time-to-stop-blaming-video-games-for-real-world-violence

Analysis: Why it’s time to stop blaming video games for real-world violence

In the wake of the El Paso shooting on Aug. 3 that left 21 dead and dozens injured, a familiar trope has reemerged: Often, when a young man is the shooter, people try to blame the tragedy on violent video games and other forms of media.

This time around, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick placed some of the blame on a video game industry that “ teaches young people to kill .” Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California went on to condemn video games that “dehumanize individuals” as a “problem for future generations.” And President Trump pointed to society’s “glorification of violence,” including “ gruesome and grisly video games .”

These are the same connections a Florida lawmaker made after the Parkland shooting in February 2018, suggesting that the gunman in that case “was prepared to pick off students like it’s a video game .”

Kevin McCarthy, the GOP House minority leader, also tells Fox News that video games are the problem following the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. pic.twitter.com/w7DmlJ9O1K — John Whitehouse (@existentialfish) August 4, 2019

But, speaking as a researcher who has studied violent video games for almost 15 years, I can state that there is no evidence to support these claims that violent media and real-world violence are connected. As far back as 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that research did not find a clear connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior.

Criminologists who study mass shootings specifically refer to those sorts of connections as a “ myth .” And in 2017, the Media Psychology and Technology division of the American Psychological Association released a statement I helped craft, suggesting reporters and policymakers cease linking mass shootings to violent media, given the lack of evidence for a link.

A history of a moral panic

So why are so many policymakers inclined to blame violent video games for violence? There are two main reasons.

The first is the psychological research community’s efforts to market itself as strictly scientific. This led to a replication crisis instead, with researchers often unable to repeat the results of their studies. Now, psychology researchers are reassessing their analyses of a wide range of issues – not just violent video games, but implicit racism , power poses and more.

The other part of the answer lies in the troubled history of violent video game research specifically.

An attendee dressed as a Fortnite character poses for a picture in a costume at Comic Con International in San Diego, California, U.S., July 19, 2019. Photo by REUTERS/Mike Blake

Beginning in the early 2000s, some scholars, anti-media advocates and professional groups like the APA began working to connect a methodologically messy and often contradictory set of results to public health concerns about violence. This echoed historical patterns of moral panic, such as 1950s concerns about comic books and Tipper Gore’s efforts to blame pop and rock music in the 1980s for violence, sex and satanism.

Particularly in the early 2000s, dubious evidence regarding violent video games was uncritically promoted . But over the years, confidence among scholars that violent video games influence aggression or violence has crumbled .

Reviewing all the scholarly literature

My own research has examined the degree to which violent video games can – or can’t – predict youth aggression and violence. In a 2015 meta-analysis , I examined 101 studies on the subject and found that violent video games had little impact on kids’ aggression, mood, helping behavior or grades.

Two years later, I found evidence that scholarly journals’ editorial biases had distorted the scientific record on violent video games. Experimental studies that found effects were more likely to be published than studies that had found none. This was consistent with others’ findings . As the Supreme Court noted, any impacts due to video games are nearly impossible to distinguish from the effects of other media, like cartoons and movies.

Any claims that there is consistent evidence that violent video games encourage aggression are simply false.

Spikes in violent video games’ popularity are well-known to correlate with substantial declines in youth violence – not increases. These correlations are very strong, stronger than most seen in behavioral research. More recent research suggests that the releases of highly popular violent video games are associated with immediate declines in violent crime, hinting that the releases may cause the drop-off.

The role of professional groups

With so little evidence, why are people like Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin still trying to blame violent video games for mass shootings by young men? Can groups like the National Rifle Association seriously blame imaginary guns for gun violence?

A key element of that problem is the willingness of professional guild organizations such as the APA to promote false beliefs about violent video games. (I’m a fellow of the APA.) These groups mainly exist to promote a profession among news media, the public and policymakers, influencing licensing and insurance laws . They also make it easier to get grants and newspaper headlines. Psychologists and psychology researchers like myself pay them yearly dues to increase the public profile of psychology. But there is a risk the general public may mistake promotional positions for objective science.

In 2005 the APA released its first policy statement linking violent video games to aggression. However, my recent analysis of internal APA documents with criminologist Allen Copenhaver found that the APA ignored inconsistencies and methodological problems in the research data.

The APA updated its statement in 2015, but that sparked controversy immediately: More than 230 scholars wrote to the group asking it to stop releasing policy statements altogether. I and others objected to perceived conflicts of interest and lack of transparency tainting the process.

It’s bad enough that these statements misrepresent the actual scholarly research and misinform the public. But it’s worse when those falsehoods give advocacy groups like the NRA cover to shift blame for violence onto non-issues like video games. The resulting misunderstanding hinders efforts to address mental illness and other issues, such as the need for gun control, that are actually related to gun violence.

This article was originally published in The Conversation. Read the original article . This story was updated from an earlier version to reflect the events surrounding the El Paso and Dayton shootings.

Christopher J. Ferguson is a professor of psychology at Stetson University. He's coauthor of " Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games is Wrong ."

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

El Paso shooting is domestic terrorism, investigators say

Nation Aug 04

Why do we keep having debates about video-game violence?

Director, Zone Learning & Associate Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University

Disclosure statement

Richard Lachman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Toronto Metropolitan University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

Toronto Metropolitan University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

After the series of tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Tex., and Dayton, Ohio, and shocking murders in Ontario and British Columbia , all on the heels of the horrific events in Christchurch, New Zealand, we once again are having debates about the effects of video-game violence on society. We need to stop.

For police investigators, the presence of video games in the online habits of perpetrators may be one relevant piece of information. But for the rest of us, it’s another example of our emotional reaction trumping (and I don’t use that word lightly) evidence-based research.

I study emerging technologies and digital culture. In our field it’s well-established: major studies show no link between violent criminal action and violent video games.

There is some evidence for a possible increase in aggressive tendencies after playing games for a period of time. Surveys of children find similar short-term aggressive play when kids watch any violent media (like a Marvel action film) — yet all of this falls radically short of criminal behaviour and violence.

I don’t want to be an apologist for popular-culture media. We can and should make space to talk about the representations of gender-based violence and the representation of people of colour in video games (and in movies and on television). We should have a conversation about the online misogyny of Gamergate , and game voice-chats , as experienced by anyone who spends time in those online spaces.

But our conversations and our actions should be based on the real needs of society for representation and inclusion. They should be based on actual evidence, rather then a scapegoat used to score quick political points.

Trying to make sense of a violent world

When we hear about mass shootings in public spaces, we want something tangible to blame, so that we can feel that the world isn’t unpredictable and unsafe. We want to feel like there’s something we can do (as long as that “something” doesn’t seem complicated).

We don’t want to blame systems or cultures of violence, or talk about public health. Those seem unimaginably complicated, intractable and therefore won’t make us feel better.

In the United States, it’s hard to get funding to say anything real. Congress bans the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting research into gun violence . This type of control leaves scholars worried that researching the wrong topic may destroy their careers.

And so journalists, politicians and pundits are left with a demonization of sub-cultures — in this case video-gaming — instead of talking about systemic issues.

I collect stories about media panics. In the 1800s, some demonized the novel, fearing it would drive women to ruin. And, going way back, Plato critiqued the invention of writing itself , fearing it would injure our memory. The earliest crusade against video-game violence I know of dates from the ‘70s, for the game Death Race. If your stomach is strong, go online to see the game as archived at the Museum of Play.

But now video games are mainstream. Three-quarters of U.S. households have at least one gamer resident. This is no longer a fringe activity. Pay attention, politicians: those kids who played Death Race? They grew up to be parents and voters. And many still play games.

So if we can’t blame video games, what’s next?

Looking for solutions

We have to look deeper and with more focus. Rather than stigmatizing the mentally ill , researchers at The Violence Project are studying what we do know about mass shooters, looking at actual data from people and events. They identified four commonalities on the part of the shooters: previous trauma (abuse, neglect, bullying), a recent crisis (loss of a job or a relationship), social contagion (studying the actions of other shooters) and access to weaponry.

To fight the problem, The Violence Project suggests we should:

End the practice of media-attention/notoriety (discourage press coverage; don’t share or view videos or manifestos from the scene of a violent act).
Prevent the normalization of this behaviour (perhaps rethinking bulletproof backpacks ).
Reduce access to the type of guns used in these tragedies.

Finally, the team found that most mass public shooters telegraphed their intentions in some way — perhaps on a message board, probably via social media. This seems like an area we can actively work to improve. If someone discloses violent action, people online might be uncertain about how dangerous the disclosure is. They may treat it as a joke or worry about damaging their social standing if they speak out.

We need more ways to refer people to help without punishment. Users could flag an online post for follow-up by moderators without thinking it will immediately result in a SWAT team being called. A paid trained expert, able to approach people without criminalizing them until deemed necessary could make that determination.

If we start with a community-based public-health approach to people in need, as expensive as that may be, we can perhaps help a wealth of issues at the same time.

Invest in mental health supports

While not easy, these are findings we can act on. We can change the way we cover mass-shootings stories in the press. We can name and combat racist, gender-based and anti-immigrant rhetoric where we find it. We can critique, not ban, a culture that supports violence, with our kids, friends and co-workers.

And finally, we can provide long-term interventions across a variety of contexts (in-person, online, international) to connect people with the mental and social resources they need.

Ultimately, a path ahead doesn’t exist solely in the realm of criminalization ( red flag laws ) and restriction (video-game bans), but rather, includes pro-social actions like public health policies and affordable, accessible, community-based mental health supports.

I’m one of the wrong set of experts to call when investigators discover that a mass-shooter played video-games. Bring in those studying mass violence or public health, and let’s put this red herring to rest.

[ Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day. ]

Public health
Mental health
Video games
Digital culture
Mass violence

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Finance Business Partner

Head of Evidence to Action

History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Games & Quizzes
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center

Pro and Con: Violent Video Games

Young boys playing video games at a gaming festival in Rome, Italy in 2015. Video gaming

To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether violent video games contribute to youth violence, go to ProCon.org .

Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.

The debate over violent video games can be traced back to the 1976 release of the game Death Race. The object of the game was to run over screaming “gremlins” with a car, at which point they would turn into tombstones. Controversy erupted because the “gremlins” resembled stick-figure humans, and it was reported that the working title of the game was Pedestrian. After protestors dragged Death Race machines out of arcades and burned them in parking lots, production of the game ceased.

In 1993, public outcry following the release of violent video games Mortal Kombat and Night Trap prompted Congress to hold hearings on regulating the sale of video games. During the hearings, California Attorney General Dan Lungren testified that violent video games have “a desensitizing impact on young, impressionable minds.” Threatened with the creation of a federal regulatory commission, the video game industry voluntarily established the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) on Sep. 1, 1994 to create a ratings system. Based on the video game’s content, the ESRB assigns one of the following ratings: “Early Childhood,” “Everyone,” “Everyone 10+,” “Teen,” “Mature,” “Adults Only,” or “Rating Pending” (only for use in advertising for games not yet rated). In a Pew Research Center 2008 survey, 50% of boys and 14% of girls aged 12-17 listed a game with a “Mature” or “Adults Only” rating in their current top three favorite games.

An Aug. 2015 report from the American Psychological Association determined that playing violent video games is linked to increased aggression, but it did not find sufficient evidence of a link between the games and increased violence. The organization reaffirmed this position in 2020: “There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior… [T]he new task force report reaffirms that there is a small, reliable association between violent video game use and aggressive outcomes, such as yelling and pushing. However, these research findings are difficult to extend to more violent outcomes.”

Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting.
Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior.
Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games.
Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence.
By inhabiting violent characters in video games, children are more likely to imitate the behaviors of those characters and have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy.
Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness.
Video games that portray violence against women lead to more harmful attitudes and sexually violent actions towards women.
Violent video games reinforce fighting as a means of dealing with conflict by rewarding the use of violent action with increased life force, more weapons, moving on to higher levels, and more.
The US military uses violent video games to train soldiers to kill.
Studies have shown violent video games may cause aggression, not violence. Further, any competitive video game or activity may cause aggression.
Violent video games are a convenient scapegoat for those who would rather not deal with the actual causes of violence in the US.
Simple statistics do not support the claim that violent video games cause mass shootings or other violence.
As sales of violent video games have significantly increased, violent juvenile crime rates have significantly decreased.
Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and prosocial behaviors.
Many risk factors are associated with youth violence, but video games are not among them.
Violent video game players know the difference between virtual violence in the context of a game and appropriate behavior in the real world.
Violent video games provide opportunities for children to explore consequences of violent actions, develop their moral compasses and release their stress and anger (catharsis) in the game, leading to less real world aggression.
Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed.

This article was published on June 8, 2021, at Britannica’s ProCon.org , a nonpartisan issue-information source.

Home / Essay Samples / Social Issues / Violence in Video Games / The Need to Ban Violent Video Games

The Need to Ban Violent Video Games

Category: Entertainment , Social Issues
Topic: Video Games , Violence in Video Games

Pages: 1 (495 words)

Downloads: -->

Introduction

Banning violent video games for a harmonious society.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Immigration Reform Essays

2Nd Amendment Essays

Daca Essays

Gender Discrimination Essays

Migration Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->

Should Violent Video-Games Be Banned?

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Should Violent Video Games Be Banned

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Video Games

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

100 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

Reasons for Banning

Counter-Arguments

250 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

The Counter-Argument

500 Words Essay on Banning Violent Video Games

The Impact of Violent Video Games

Arguments for Banning Violent Video Games

The Role of Parental Control

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay

Introduction: Banning Violent Video Games

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

Analysis: Why it’s time to stop blaming video games for real-world violence

A history of a moral panic

Reviewing all the scholarly literature

The role of professional groups

Educate your inbox

El Paso shooting is domestic terrorism, investigators say

Why do we keep having debates about video-game violence?

Disclosure statement

Trying to make sense of a violent world

Looking for solutions

Invest in mental health supports

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Finance Business Partner

Head of Evidence to Action

Pro and Con: Violent Video Games

The Need to Ban Violent Video Games

Introduction

Related Essays