Slashdot Mirror
Warriors Of Freedom Prompted Rampage Attempt?
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a Philadelphia Inquirer article linking videogames to an alleged spree killing attempt. According to the article, "Investigators suspect the three teens arrested.. as they allegedly were about to launch a killing rampage in the small town, found inspiration in violent computer games.. [police] learned that the name the three reportedly had given themselves - Warriors of Freedom - is also an Internet-based combat game." But only a few media reports mention that the violent game connection was made by Jack Thompson, a Miami lawyer and outspoken critic of violent video and computer games - is this a case of shameless Googling to find any obscure game with a similar name and make a connection, or is there genuine evidence here?
is this a case of shameless Googling to find any obscure game with a similar name and make a connection, or is there genuine evidence here?
Evidence of what? Playing a violent video game? Big deal. Most kids play violent video games. What kind of games do you expect psycho killers to enjoy: doom3 or oregon trail? These critics really need to understand that a=>b does NOT mean b=>a. It's a very simple logical fallacy. I'm not discounting the possibility that violent games can incourage violent behavoir either, it's just that you actually need to show that video games lead one to violence when one would otherwise not be disposed to it. Violence was here long before video games were.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
As an avid gamer, I can say that I've never heard of this game, and unless there is some evidence on their computers to back up this claim, its basically groundless.
Offtopic, I love the new gaming icon (Tellah is my favorite video game character of all time!)
If you want to go on a huge killing spree and kill lots of innocent people as a "Warrior of Freedom" sign up for the United States Army.
All the murder, none of the legal problems.
>>or is there genuine evidence here?
Well, is the game installed on any of their computers? If so, then maybe the game has something to do with the group's name. If not, then move along.
Huh?
They will blame everyone and everything, except the two causes:
1) the people who teased them to death for years.
2) the boys themselves for choosing to plan the crime and carry it out.
EVERYONE else will be blamed first- you, me, and the internet....
I suggest you read Slashdot
What the hell?
Violent video games, last time I looked, weren't terribly accurate as far as blood and guts and such went. Granted, it's been a year or so since I played a first-person shooter, but if memory serves, the blood flying across the screen had an almost comical effect, with more blood than would possibly come from one living thing. Quake was always amusing, not serious.
I know that they're going to blame the "violence that we expose our children to in video games" for these screwed up kids, but I don't buy it. If it wasn't video games, these kids would be into real guns in a much more serious way, or knives, or swords, or compound bows, or something. And, they'd probably be a helluva lot more dangerous, since they'd actually know how to wield these implements, rather than going through video game experiences.
If parents would raise their kids, rather than letting the TV, the computer, the entertainment system do it, maybe we'd have less problems.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Violence has been blamed on video games, music, movies, television, even books. This is nothing new, it's just someone using a crime as an excuse to advance their opinion on something completely different. This has always happened, and will continue to happen as long as people don't like something new, and can find any connection, however small, between something they don't like and crime.
How come they only blame video games when white kids do a murder?
When some black kids do it, well you know how those negros are...
It's as if a nice whiteboy would never do a murder it must of have been an evil video game that corrupted him, but when some black kid shoots someone at his inner city school it doesn't even make the news. I guess blacks are just expected to shoot each other naturally. No one looks for the causes of a black kids violence.
It's racism really.
What about TV? Movies? Magazines? Where does it end?
It amazes me every time that something like this nearly happens or does happen that guns are still legal in the United States. Should guns not get the blame for killing people rather than video games? People who say things like "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." may be right but having no guns makes it a hell of a lot harder for these would be killers to go on killing sprees.
Totally silly to blame a few kids going *bonkers* (or perhaps intending to do the same) on an inanimate object, namely object code.
I even hate this line of questioning (and I'm not remotely a gamer so it's not like I'm defending gaming out of desire to protect my own personal habits/preferences). I hate it b/c it allows the kids to potentially carry on with the illusion that they themselves were not and are not 100% to blame for their own actions.
And, yes, at ages 15, 16, 18, you are responsible for your own actions. Even if you've got "absentee parents" and the rest of your life has sucked the big one, you are old enough to know right from wrong and thusly you are old enough to choose one in lieu of the other.
That's not to say that there aren't things existentially *wrong* with American culture -- I personally think it's important for kids to have a parent at home particularly during *the formative years* -- but those aspects of culture are part of being an American: where choice and free will are implied and no legislation intrude.
I live quite close to there, and read about it in my local newspaper. The 3 teens had 2 rifles, 2 handguns, a shotgun, knifes and swords. They surrendered when 1 cop showed up and told them to drop their weapons. Rampage my ass, this was just a cry for help. With their numbers and firepower they could have easily killed him, but they didn't. The 18 year old 'leader' just lost his mother (and some other female friend/family member, don't remember which) and didn't fit in at school. He was mentally unstable and socially outcast. Games had little to do with it, except to give them a title to use.
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
Now a kid who grows up playing violent, realistic games could tend to be lsss affronted by violence. How easy would it be for a kid to look out his apartment window to the street below and imagine getting a perfect rail shot to a person below? Or turning the corner in school and hitting the local nerd with a double-barrel shotgun blast? Now that doesn't mean the kid would necessarily consider acting it out in real life, but is that the first step on a slippery slope towards real violence?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Don't blame violent games or violent movies for the actions of crazy people. As Michael Moore points out in Bowling for Columbine, we see the same movies and play the same games here in Canada and in the rest of the world as you do in the States, but there's nowhere near the violence (generally speaking of course), so there MUST be something else at play here.
Lovett's uncle Thomas Crymes said the June graduate of Collingswood High School had been on his computer "constantly."
"He never went anywhere with anybody," Crymes said.
Ever think he was on the computer constantly because he was harassed by the other students and had nowhere to go? Maybe that same harassment had something to do with his motive?
Was the guy that shot up that Lockheed Martin factory also "under the influence" of computer games and violent movies? Or is there a more complex societal problem going on here?
Ronald Lovett, who works as a electronics repairman on the same block as his apartment, said his son had become withdrawn after his mother's death. His son also often had to defend his younger brother, who has undergone 13 operations for a cleft palate, the father said.
"When they used to go out when they were little, of course people would pick on the brother, and Matt would have to defend him," Ronald Lovett told CNN. "They didn't get along well with their peers."
.
.
.
"The boys also had to endure the death of an older half sister who was hit by a car a year after their mother's death, Crymes said."
What kind of evil SOBs would pick on a kid with a cleft palate whose mother and sister recently died. I thank the Lord that these kids were picked up before they hurt anyone, but if you want to examine "root causes" instead of video games maybe take a look at an utter lack of conscious or morality by all parties involved.
Evil begets evil.
Brian Ellenberger
Quoted from the article "And among the names Lovett used in a letter left for his family was the Neo, an apparent reference to the main character of The Matrix, which is both a movie series and a computer game." ...
Instead of pointing out the fact that the movie itself was about cyberpunk, he just said that 'The Matrix' is also a video game.
I guess that's enough to prove that people who write these kind of articles are ignorant about the subject, are mostly scared about things that they just do not understand and they would prefer that everything would stay the same.
Maybe we should forbid weapons and take care of our children instead of trying to find evidences that the actual society is responsible of their acts. Guns do not kill, people do. The same for children, they did not went bad because of the actual world, some grow up bad because WE made this world as it is.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
The only reasonable explanation for a kid to lash out under these circumstances is the evil influence of games like Mech Commando. I just can't see it any other way.
I certainly wouldn't put any of the responsibility for these crimes on the people who made up these kids' world. There is no way that people are to blame for this sort of thing.
It has to be video games. Or rock music. Or D&D. (D&D!? That's sooo 80's.) Or marijuana. Or the devil. Or a malevelont, super-intelligent giant chicken from the center of the Earth. Anything, as long as people don't have to come face to face with their role in the lives of these kids.
The game is TEXT BASED
If...
>> There is a knight ahead. Attack or flee? {A/F}
$$ A
>> The knight has been slain.
causes people to go on killing rampages, it would have been an epidemic about 20 years ago.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Uhh... yeah. Incredible real-life shooting skills from Halo? Since when has playing Halo given anyone any skills other than being good at playing Halo? Thompson is trying so hard to link his "video games are really just real life murder training programs" to incidents of violence that he'll ignore anything grounded in reality. Does he have a brother named Thomson?
Geez, it's like the Dungeons and Dragons scare all over again.
From the article:
Lovett also was the target of teasing. The classmates said he had been mocked for his bow-legged and stooped gait and his clothes.
My guess would be that over 75% of teenagers play or have played 'violent' video games at some point or another. I'm guessing but it feels more or less right. That's probably millions-- tens of millions-- of video game players in the US and across the developed world. Are they all potential killers? Of course not. To argue so would involve twisting statistics around in a 'war on drugs' fashion-- maintaining that marijuana is a 'gateway' drug, which simply isn't true. Very few users of marijuana go on to do harder drugs. But many that do harder drugs have smoked pot (and continue to do so), which is what alarmist conservative organizations, in a thorough betrayal of libertarian roots, emphasize in order to restrain civil liberties.
But there is simply not enough of a correlation to warrant limits on video games (a form of free speech IMHO anyway) even *if* in specific cases a causal argument *might* be made. The point is that you can't do sociology by anecdote only. By all rights, statistically, toasters are probably deadlier than video games anyway.
Given the utter lack of *any* systematic correlation between playing video games and engaging in violent, anti-social behaviour, perhaps we should look at other possible causes, Like the bullying and teasing which goes on in every schoolyard, every day, hmmm? I am convinced that the solace this kid found in video games was a result of being called a 'fag' constantly, of being beaten up for lacking social grace, for failure to heed the intricate, consumerist protocol of North American teenhood. Any 'obsession' with video games was a symptom and NOT the problem.
Bah, sheer sensationalism and a refusal to look at root causes-- of course this seems to be a recurrent theme these days.
Reminds me of that Onion article--Columbine Jocks Safely Resume Bullying. It's a sad indicator of the state of our civlization when we learn nothing from tragedy, but that's another topic entirely.
iopha
Really.. They're quick to publish spectacular theories on violence in computer games, movies, art, and just about every aspect of culture but themeselves.
How about removing the beam from their own eyes?
Modern news media (and especially the American ones) are flooded with violence.
There is a key difference here though: People, even young children, understand that films, computer games etc. are fiction. News media, on the other hand, is treated as fact, no matter how distorted the picture is.
People are lead to believe that violence is constantly increasing (even when it's not), that their neighborhoods are unsafe, and that a prowler, burglar or hoodlum could be waiting for them at any minute.
Excessive violence in news reporting leads to excessive fear. Fear in turn, leads to violence.
Blame the media is a popular game.. but they still don't get nearly enough criticism, and you can wonder why..
I sat around and thought about the merits of snipering from a tower vs. armed assualt complete with smoke and infared goggles. I remember thinking about it in detail planning every little thing I could think of, researching ammo types, max lethal range for certain easily available rifles etc.
Now granted my knowledge of firearms came alot from Video Games, but not any more than from Tom Clancy books and the History Channel. In fact since this was pre-CS I'd say most of my knowledge came from the History channel, especially some wonderful documentaries they aired on assasinations, that thought me the merits of the AK-47/74.
Now the difference between me and these guys is a simple one. I probably did as much planning as they did if not more. In fact I dare say I fantasized about it. But I stopped just short of collecting weapons and making the large leap between "I'll think about killing half my school" and "I'm going to kill half my school".
Why is this? The answer to that question is the fundamental issue here. I'm am not violent by nature. I tend to avoid fights even though I'm 6' 2" 230lbs. The fights I've been in, I've tended to reign in my punches at the last minute because I don't like hurting people.
I shudder to think what I'd be like if I had a violent personality. I can bet I'd be a lot more dangerous than these guys, more effecient anyway.
And thats what it comes down to basically. Not video-games or media in general. Having the knowledge to do something isn't the same as doing it. Despite what the media keeps telling everyone. There is something else that makes you violent or not. I wish people would stop looking for easy answers.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
He was born braindead. And then had help from is 'parents'.
"Oaklyn teenagers also say he also practiced martial arts and had compiled a list of his enemies since elementary school."
Any 'link' between this incident and video games, or the other popular theory, The Matrix, is mere hand waving by the media.
I'd expect most teens that have played video games have played at least some that involve "blowing something up", or shooting something. All but the most bland edutainment games, and openended games (SimCity, etc) involve some sort of destruction.
Could Frogger be linked to massive roadkill on the highways?
Could SimCity be linked to corrupt politics and poor city managament?
Could Bewitched be linked to a rise in adult witchcraft?
Damn, these guys are stupid. But it does sell newspapers.
Times change, and people grow accustomed to the new standard.
So we can be desensitised to sensational journalism?
I have seen it in people who delve into Martial arts. They tried to be someone else entirely. Someone with power. I have seen it with some wilderness guys, trying to get away from a life they hated. These kids just got too much into something they, with their lives and personalities, shouldn't. Violent games can be a good tool of stress relief. And it can be a dangerous obsession for neglected and troubled youths.
Sounds like they liked the Matrix too much and had no grounding in a favorable reality and had no way to cope.
"When I see some hardcore FPS gamer have a visit to the hospital, and watch a real human life disappear before their eyes, then come out smiling, I'll believe video games might, over the long term, desensitize children."
I think that every person in the world (and especially the developed world) should do just that. I have. I also observed a dramatic change in my friends when they saw me get hit by a SUV going 45 mph while crossing the street (at a crosswalk) after having just said goodbye to them. I didn't die, but it gave them a better grasp of life.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Because the vast majority of murders are -not- even tangentially related to, inspired by, or in any way caused by "mass media images of violence" or videogames.
Here or in Japan.
They're caused by domestic disputes, mostly, followed by drug deals, or what have you.
Our murder rate soars over theirs for a number of reasons, but as you point out, NOT because our media is more violent.
Why doesn't anyone point out the real obvious culprit in these Columbine-style cases? Bullying.
Actually, the nudist-raised child may have an entirely different reaction to a nude woman (even whilst in or after puberty) than a non-nudist-child, simply because of the extremely socialized nature of human sexuality. Numerous studies have confirmed this, but just look at the massively ethnocentric nature of beauty (i.e. the oft-mentioned enjoyment of fat women during the renaissance as compared to our current heroin-chic). He simply may not find arousal in the nudity, having been socialized to only find arousal in true interaction (i.e. dialogue).
Relating this to the video games, a person who is so muted to the presence of violence (but lacking a corresponding presence of consequences of violences) may think themselves to be innured against violence. I.e., they may claim that because they are not shocked or suprised by violence, that they are less excited by it. However, our fear is not childrens' reactions to violence (which would be the parallel to the nudist example), but instead their proclivity towards violence. Basically, if we remove the internal connection of "violence by nature harms someone", replacing it with "violence doesn't hurt anyone", we may create children who have no real understanding of the damage inflicted by violence. We may, in short, end up with Columbine kids.
Now keep in mind, I'm not advocating a removal of violent video games. I just finished playing a few minutes of Vice City, and I'm happy to have enjoyed it. However, I'm old enough that I know the difference, in the same way that I'm old enough to distinguish pornographic sex from real sex, or to distinguish cartoon science from real science. A seven year old, however, cannot really do this [often]. What should we do? My answer is parenting: take a bit of personal accountability for your children. The problem, though, is that parents are more concerned these days with limiting the child's exposure, as opposed to preparing them emotionally to interpret these fictional situations. We need parents to teach kids to deal with virtual violence, sex and the ilk.
"Stumble before you crawl"
I read through most of the comments and I've come up with some observations that have always bounced around my brain without ever coming otgether until now.
/.
/. style populations. If you want in depth, thought out discussions and opinions on things like DMCA, P2P, SCO vs IBM, etc, it would seem that reporters would be inclined to solicit these types of opinions rather than find crackpots like Jack Thompson, Hillary Rosen, etc. Is it the general 'geek' stigma that surrounds such topics. Are we too 'geeky' to have valid opinions. It seems like we're 'geek' enough to do all the critical engineering and researching in the modern world, but not have an insight into the issues afterwards.
1. The majority of the comments here tend to solidify around the logic that this story and the source of it are idiotic and baseless. Now this isn't commentary coming from random sources. This is commentary coming from somewhat intelligent, well-articulated people with some degree of expertise or interest in games and technology. These kind of opinions would seem to be the most logical ones to comment on this aspect of the story.
2. These opinions will never be treated seriously by the mainstream press. These are the voices that get ignored or mocked by the Bill O'Reliey's and Fox News Channels of the world. The media always seems willing to go to the Jack Thompsons of the world for quotes and perspectives, but always seem hesitant to find the kind of views you would see of
So it leaves me to wonder why this happens. Time and time again, the media is willing to go for the off-the-wall source to make a story stand out, rather than seeking out the opinions of
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
But only a few media reports mention that the violent game connection was made by Jack Thompson, a Miami lawyer and outspoken critic of violent video and computer games
Funny how the biggest opponents of personal responsibily are the ones who financially benefit the most when they can convince others that individuals are not resposible for their actions. Having about milked the tabacco industry to its full potential, trial lawyers have moved on to fast food, and it's a matter of time before the game companies are crushed under the weight of lawsuits as well. This absurdity will continue until people decide they've had enough and that individuals are solely to blame for the choices they make.
exactly...
Violent games will have an effect on people, but only those people who don't have the mindset to know that it has no bearing on real life. It's the same reason pyschologically that films, and music, and even a conversation with a bad friend can have same effect on people who aren't mentally mature enough to know what morals apply and why.
But, this is no reason to ban these games, or the films, that the majority of people can enjoy in a harmless way. When was the last time someone banned say soccer for the effect it has on some supporters in the UK, when the majority of people can get on and just watch it and enjoy it (though personally I wish they would band it, but that's just me being bitter about the morons...)
I think I'm going to decide to kill some people, and call my team of killers the Counter-Strike team just cos it's a cool name. I mean... come on!!!!
I wish we'd get a little less overblown reaction from the people who are so uptight they think they can stop people who are going to kill just by banning something they either played, or watched, or listened to. Naming yourself after one of these things is *not* proof that it was even remotely a cause.
At least the man (read: government) doesnt still try and blaim weed for things like this. Remember the movie Refer Madness? They tried to convince the public that if you smoked a joint youd go on a raping and murder rampage.
http://interserver.net/
So what if they were inspired by a video game or by The Matrix. The entertainment industry still has a ways to go before it catches up to God, Allah, and Jesus. More people kill based on religious beliefs than anything and I don't see a whole lot of regulations on worship.
'Same speed C but faster'
>It's a very simple logical fallacy.
Yep, its the old causation vs. correlation fallacy.
America has already been through this when Dr. Frederick Wertham (a popular quack-ish psychologist from the 50's) wrote a book arguing that comics caused all sorts of deviant behavoir. This killed the comic industry by turning it into kid's stuff, more or less. More info here. Better details here.
I think this is the favorite meme for hack journalists. If a kid goes psycho then make sure to print how he dressed, what music he listened to, and what games he plays and start the witch-hunt! I was very surprised to see that almost 1/3rd of a AP/Reuters article was about these things and not what actually happened.
I doubt a "Comics Code Authority" self-censorship will take place again, but the kneejerk mentality is still there with some people. Hopefully we've learned something in the fifty or so years since the Comics Code was created.
You've made a good argument how violence in movies or video games could create more violent people. The thing you haven't shown at all is that this theory is correct. Persuasive arguments are very easy to make. ......Until one of us shows actual evidence that the theory is correct it's all just a pissing contest .....
It's surprising how often sceptics about the link between portrayals of violence and the actuality of copycat violence often shelter behind demands for unusual levels of evidence. In ordinary life, people tend to judge that when there is a striking similarity between the individual characteristics of what first of all one person does in public or shows to the public, and then what other people do shortly afterwards, it _is_ evidence of copying -- absent something that would reasonably account for the similarity even if the activities were independently conceived. What else is fashion?
Copycat violence has been well known at least for a couple of hundred years -- an early example followed Goethe's book 'Sufferings of Werther' that was followed for a time by a wave of similar-pattern romantic pistol suicides among disappointed young men. There are many much more recent examples where striking similarity between the characteristics of the prototype or image, and then of the violence that followed after it, make the inference of copying overwhelmingly probable.
The way that many people nevertheless resist accepting that this kind of copying is a fact indicates that there is something specifically causing that resistance -- and in some cases I suspect the cause of that resistance is probably $$$$.
Yup, it was the Matrix and that video game all right. Ban them and we'll all be able to sleep well at night.
The schools that tolerated harassment of students of a nature that would get an adult fired from almost any workplace had NOTHING to do with it. The pathetic social support system in the USA, and the general lack of good low-cost mental health programs had NOTHING to do with it. It's the games.
The owner of the gun is required to ensure that they are secured properly. If dad is the owner, and dad didn't lock them up in accordance to local, state, and federal laws -- than there may be charges pressed against dad.
Like any tool that can cause damage, owning a gun requires a certain amount of responsibility. In fact, most of it is spelled out in the law. If dad didn't abide by those laws, than the very well may find himself in court.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
So it's not the kid's fault? Please. The kid is old enough to know what he's doing. Even if his father is a perfect son of a bitch, the kid knows it's wrong to kill people, and that whatever problems he has don't make killing other people right.
To say that he's young, and doesn't understand the consequences of what he's doing, is to insult the intelligence of others his age.
Blame his father for being a bad parent if you want. I will blame the kid for taking the weapons and threatening others.
Blaming his dad is just another form of the same reasoning that blames the video game.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
I must in return call you out for a bit of spin yourself. Your points:
> The weapons were locked in a closet
I must agree with the other posters who commented that if this kid had never fired a gun, he should not have had access to them. If he didn't break the lock to get them (he didn't), then they weren't secured properly. Securing firearms is the complete and sole responsibility of the owner of those firearms. Period.
> The majority of the (whoo scary) 2000 rounds of ammunition were a few 500 boxes of ancient target rounds.
Spin point one: twenty to thirty years old does not qualify as "ancient" in any sane sense, and thirty year old rounds still fire correctly in most cases. Spin point two: what difference does it make how old they were? Are you implying that being shot by a thirty year old bullet pack would somehow be less injurious than a new round? Also, the guns and ammo were fitted to each other. I'd frankly be less worried if the son had grabbed an old gun and new bullets, since they're less likely to be compatible. If the guns were antiques, why did he keep period ammunition? If he had to keep ammo for the gun, why did he keep it with the gun? Rule one for keeping people from using your firearms without your say-so is to separate your stores of ammo from the weapon. Again, this is very irresponsible gun ownership.
> The "kid" was 18, a legal adult.
Irrelevant. His guns, his responsiblity. Nobody thinks he should be charged with conspiracy to commit assault, they think he should be charged with criminal negligence. The "kid"'s age does not change that.
> Blaming the parent without knowing the full facts is just as idiotic as blaming video games.
I agree. However, there are enough facts available in this case to pass judgement.
Virg
"Warriors of Freedom"?
sounds more like they have been listening to Bush's speeches than playing video games.
"The direction controls are the same in Nethack as they are in vi." "Yeah, I hardly ever die in vi anymore."
As the father of a growing geek I am constantly looking for signs of any psychological effect of his inevitable games playing and on more than one occasion have discussed with him the violence in them. On every occasion he has put me down saying "don't be stupid it's not real like the stuff on the news".
He's right - the one image I remember most vividly and probably always will was that of a man on his knees, clearly begging for his life ( there was no sound ) as he was shot through the head in a summary execution. Was this in some computer game ? no it was on a six o'clock news report of troubles in Africa ! At no point did anyone say shooting someone in the head is a bad thing because it's assumed we all know. Children don't but then they're insignificant to news network demographics.
We dramatise and sensationalise exactly the same behaviour in reality that which we condemn in non-reality because bad news is big money. Have we seen lots of tv coverage about how the fact that we are still fighting injustice and crimes against humanity is a sad reflection on our ability to evolve ? Has the need to fight terrorism been portrayed as a sad reflection on our ability to live together ? No we portray it in a glorified, gung ho, us against them manner with lots of shows about how efficiently we can kill people these days.
Worse still we now have the epidemic of Reality TV shows which seem to be immune to any kind of censorship. My son has asked me on more than one occasion if this is real because it's so extreme he thinks it can't possibly be so, now tell me which is the more scary !
No doubt recreational activites such as computer games can contribute to the mindset that allows someone to go out and kill but I'd be willing to bet that other aspects of our lives that we willingly accept do also.
The Swiss have 3 times as many guns as people and computer games are freely available yet their incidence of armed crime is virtually nil !