The Harvard Crimson on Gun Violence: Too Little Too Late
The Crimson published an editorial last week criticizing the German government for scapegoating violent video games in order to explain a school shooting in Winnenden, Germany that killed 15. The paper's pro-Halo stance was supported by a recent study that playing shoot-em-up games actually improved eyesight. Video games have also been credited with improving mental health, something Harvard students could use. While Yale students and their million dollar Xboxes are clearly training for something, do Crimson editors really know anything about guns 'n bombs?
Here in the US, video games are a right. Just last week Utah gamers were vindicated when the governor vetoed a bill that would have penalized retailers of tony titles like "Grand Theft Auto" and "Manhunt". Puh-leeze legislators who think a game called "Manhunt" encourages violence. And GTA definitely isn't in any way linked to murder, rape, or full frontal male nudity. Right, guys? Like the Crimeds said:
There are simply too many lurking variables—socially awkward teenagers may play violent video games, but so do many perfectly happy teens. We cannot prove that playing the games somehow morphs teens into serial killers... There will always be sociopaths and oddballs in any society or era. We cannot hope to make every single person happy or non-violent.
It's fairly safe to guess that maybe the Crimson didn't get to read this article which found out that the killer actually played his favorite game the night before he decided to go off on his murderous rampage. Smoking gun after the jump.
Still velvety from the tireless prestige of superior British journalism, The Times reports that the killer mimicked his scenes from his favorite games during the killing spree. The evidence is not inconclusive.
Remarkable parallels emerged between the video game and the 17-year-old’s rampage. In the game it is essential to hijack cars to move around. Kretschmer hijacked a car, held a pistol to the driver’s head and asked: “Should I have fun and pick off some more drivers?” Characters in the game...wear black camouflage uniforms – the clothing Kretschmer wore on Wednesday.
Most sinister of all, Far Cry 2’s killer uses a Beretta 92 handgun, the weapon fired 112 times by Kretschmer. The game...includes sequences in which the aiming, firing and reloading of a Beretta are portrayed in vivid detail. It also rewards players who shoot their victims in the head, the style of killing chosen by Kretschmer.
At this point, it might be appropriate to play the concerned parent card. (Not that we have kids or anything, lolz.) As cool as it is to sounds liberal and stuff, it's much less cool just to sound liberal and stuff. In the future, THC, let's see more direct action like the one commentor, "blessed by not having a Harvard education" who wrote a bill to BAN ALL VIDEO GAMES FOREVER! Here's an excerpt from his letter to President Obama:
An industry, then, that will not keep its adult products from children, while claiming it does, must be deprived of its opportunity to sell these adult products to anyone. This is the price this industry must pay for more than a decade of deception and death.
Game over.
I am not the only person who believes this must be done.
If this shooting had happened in the US, by the way, there would hell to pay. And then the Crimson would have to write an additional editorial on suing the bastards who really caused the tragedy through their sick video game design skills.
At least Harvard researchers last year agreed with the editorial's conclusions, deeming the shooting, crashing, and er, thefting, in Grand Theft Auto nothing more than stress relief. (And then they handed out more free blow.)
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
April 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Have you ever read Gaming forums? These kids have a community standard of groupthink in which they all must immediately make derisive scoffs at any insinuation that violent video games can at all provoke or influence one toward someday committing violent acts. Or even that it can lessen one’s empathy or concern for other agents.
They will make straw man arguments or transform statements into nonsensical analogues (”I guess then if I eat cotton candy I’ll TURN INTO COTTON CANDY”). They’ll then recite some phrase from an internet meme (”lam0rz”,”FAIL”, or whatever else the kids are saying these days).
Let’s not lose sight of logic, people.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
If logic is what you want to focus on, then you should:
a) stop ad hominem attacks on “gaming kids” (fyi the average gamer is over 30)
b) learn the difference between causality and correlation.
There will always be crazies who do terrible things, and the terrible things they do will be influenced by their experiences. Whether its games, movies, books, music, or abusive parents, blaming one thing serves little purpose.
Here’s a correlation for you: gaming is more popular than ever and youth violence is at an all-time low and declining (as it has been for the last decade).
And for what it’s worth, manhunt is disgusting.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I didn’t make the conclusion that the correlation implied causation. I was criticizing the defensive mechanisms maintained by the community, which prevent it from further investigating the issue at hand. There is probably an implicit parts-versus-the-whole bias here, but it’s something I’ve commonly observed. Personally I’m not sure what to think re: incredibly realistic fictional violence spurring real violence.
Your point about the ad hominem portrayal is, however, fair and well-noted.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
That people, particularly teenagers, who would commit these horrible acts are attracted to violent video games. The video games are a symptom, not a cause.
I am in no way implying that all people who play violent video games are capable and willing to enact them in real life. Much like how most people with brain tumors suffer from headaches, but extremely few people who have headaches have brain tumors.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
That is the weakest “smoking gun” ever, although I could see how it might appear that way to someone who has very obviously never played the game.
Of their three “remarkable” parallels:
1) So he hijacked a car, which also occasionally happens in the game. Pointing the gun to the driver’s head and threatening other drivers is something that never happens, you can only take cars with no one in them in the game.
2) “Characters in the game wear black camouflage”? Yes. Characters in the game also wear white shirts and shoes! It’s a game that takes place over an gigantic area, there are characters wearing just about anything. For the record, I have beaten the game and don’t recall a plethora of people wearing black camo at any point, the vast majority of characters are just wearing regular clothes.
3) “Far Cry 2’s killer uses a beretta”. Yes, true. He also uses a TON of other weapons, and it shows them being reloaded too. There’s no special focus on the beretta or connection between the game and that particular gun. If the game has a “signature” weapon at all, it’s either fire or a machete.
If the kid had used fire in some way, I’d be much more convinced, as the selling point of Far Cry 2 was its fire, and the open world that allowed you to use brush fires, etc, to burn out hiding enemies. As is, he just did some things most killers do, and then someone said “OMG there are ALSO guns in THIS VIDEO GAME!!”
I have no problem with people criticizing video games for being violent, but it continues to amaze me that people are willing to condemn games and game developers without ever having played their games.