Just several days ago, we posted a news here at QJ about a guy killing his 17-month old baby for pulling on the cords of his game console in the middle of a game and causing the console to fall. And then there's this story about a 25-year-old man going on a shooting spree over at Dawson College in Montreal, taking at least 1 life and leaving 19 others wounded just last September 13th. The media was quick to point out that the gunman enjoyed violent video games and once again, we see how video games, the violent ones at that, are conveniently pointed to as the necessary cause of violence in real life. A scapegoat? Maybe.

This led Nelson Rodriguez over at Planet Xbox360 to examine exactly if there is a causal relation between violence and video games. More particularly, which came first? In his article, he points out that if video games do influence gamers' behaviour, especially the young, impressionable ones, then shouldn't it be the case that there would be more people attracted to, say, sports?

He surmises that if, for example, researchers would pool in a group of kids who have never played sports and introduced them to Madden NFL, ten years later, when they track down how these kids turned out, they should take into account how many of these kids actually pursued football. After all, "being a pro athlete is much more appealing and socially acceptable than committing murder and spending your life in prison." Therefore, following through this logical syllogism, "if games truly lead to widespread copycat actions, sport-hating nerds will line up at the Jets tryout camp every year." But the reality is that it does not really result to that.

The only probable reason then is that gamers get into the kind of video games that give them what they are naturally inclined to or interested in to begin with. To say that the violence-simulating games like Saints Row are to be blamed for the violent tendencies of people is assumptive at best. Afterall, crime has been in existence for as long as mankind has been around. And no, we didn't need video games for it to happen. Thus, he sees no reason why gaming has to be tagged as the culprit for murder-inclined dispositions of people, with most parties making it sound as if a game directly transformed an innocent person into a raving killer.

Yes, the sweeping generalizations and accusations can be really unforgiving and unfair, especially since there are a large number of gamers who could very well prove this hypothesis wrong. But it is no wonder how media can so easily pre-judge the character of a person based on his everyday activities. It just so happened that more often than not, the culprits had the common trait of being gamers, then put in the factor of easily putting the blame on something which you don't understand, and voila! You now have an excuse to give to the concerned citizens.

It would seem that gaming is the most convenient scapegoat for media and the authorities when it comes to pinning the blame on some gruesome act committed by a person. But the point is, as eloquently elaborated in the article, it does not necessarily follow. The sad truth is that, in spite of the wide reception and the fact that gaming is enjoyed as a budding culture, it still remains to be one unfathomable cryptic phenomenon for others, which causes them to repel it. As they say, "You fear what you cannot understand."