Researcher Finds No Link Between Violent Games and School Shootings

GamePolitics writes "A researcher at Texas A&M International University has found no link between playing violent video games and school shootings. Prof. Christopher Ferguson cites 'moral panic' and criticizes politicians, the news media and some social scientists for playing up what he believes is a false connection between video games and school shooting incidents. Quoting: 'Actual causes of violent crime, such as family environment, genetics, poverty, and inequality, are oftentimes difficult, controversial, and intractable problems. By contrast, video games present something of a "straw man" by which politicians can create an appearance of taking action against crime.'"

Comments

What about the easy availability of guns ?

[Alain Williams]

In the UK guns are not as easy to get hold of as in the USA. We don't have school shootings.

Spot the correlation.

Re:What about the easy availability of guns ?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

In short, you aren't presenting any factual information either.

I've read quite a few papers, but it doesn't matter because I'm not the one making an assertion.

If we are talking about these attacks on school campuses, I think it is fairly obvious that if the killers didn't have guns, they would be a lot less effective.

You think that is obvious? You don't think poison or a big bomb might be a lot more effective? I'd argue that largely untrained children with guns are a lot less effective than other techniques they could turn to or at the very least you need to provide some data if you want me to accept this hypothesis.

And you can pick and choose what countries you want to talk about to make the statistics look like guns make things more safe or less safe.

Pick and choose? If you can pick different countries with completely different rates of violence and gun ownership that proves my point. There is no strong correlation between the two factors. Restricting the sample set to just the US and UK without normalizing for all other correlative factors and claiming you can draw conclusions based upon that is the error.

But I think what the OP says is true. Restrict people from having guns, school attacks will be less deadly.

Okay, you think that. Why do you think that? Do you have any information or is it just based upon emotion? Do you have any actual studies to back up your hypothesis or is it completely untested?

I'm not saying ban guns, I am just stating something.

No, you and the previous poster are asserting something, but have presented no evidence to back up your assertion except one implied causation that does not hold up when you look at a sample set of any size.

But the guns rights advocates can't have rational discussions. It is their religion.

This is a strawman. Please wait until others make an irrational argument and then feel free to point it out. In the mean time, why not reply to my rational criticism of your assertions and lack of evidence?