Study: Violent Video Games Might Cut Down On Violent Crime
Killzone 3For so long, video games have been blamed for having a direct increase on violent crime. But perhaps the exact opposite is the real truth, as a recent study has indicated.
According to a new study entitled "Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime," violent games may have a two-pronged effect: in the first place, the study supported findings from other studies, which successfully linked violent games and aggression. But on the other hand, we learn that games actually reduced violent crime by keeping potential offenders away from real-life trouble. The researchers are calling this the "incapacitation effect" and concluded that- "Overall, violent video games lead to decreases in violent crime."
Furthermore, the BBC cited this study and listed video games as one of their top ten reasons why crime in the US has decreased over the last 20 years. You may recall our talk with Dr. Bartholow after his study indicated a link between violent video games and aggression; it was an interesting result. But as he said at the time, this doesn't mean we'll all turn into serial killers, and how violence affects us requires more study.
P.S. Dr. Bartholow and I were interviewed for a NPR station in Missouri. My comments are right at the end; they're brief but they exist. :)
Tags: game study, violent games, video game industry
6/21/2011 8:59:25 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (62 posts)
NoOneSpecial
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:41:03 PM
Reply
Last edited by NoOneSpecial on 6/21/2011 9:41:43 PM
5 up, 0 down
JackDillinger89
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:48:13 PM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
jimmyhandsome
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:48:56 PM
Reply
This kind of reminds me of an interview I saw on ESPN....Did anyone see the interview with Ray Lew and Sal Palantonio? At the time I thought it was one of the most ridiculous interviews I've ever seen by a professional football player in a world that is filled with pre-maddona, twitter-vomiting, and dumb. athletes. Sal asked Mr. Lewis what he thought would happen if there was a lockout by the NFL and Ray provided one of the most self-absorded ignorant comments I've ever heard: " Do this research if we don't have a season -- watch how much evil, which we call crime, watch how much crime picks up, if you take away our game."
What, Ray? If you're not running around in football pads making millions by tackling other players, fans are going to turn of their TV on Sundays and run out side and start murdering people?
I guess this study somewhat pertains to what he was trying to say. The less time we waste away in front of the boobtube watching Sunday Night football or playing Killzone 3 the more of us that will be outside slinging crack and robbing pedestrians.
5 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 2:08:36 AM
Unless you were trying to take a shot at Madonna for banging athletes, the phrase is "prima donna".
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 8:55:46 AM
Don't worry. I made that mistake before. My mom corrected me and used a song from Phantom of the Opera to illustrate her point...... lol. (Guess what that song is called? Yup... Prima Donna.)
By the way, saw Paul Stanley (from Kiss, for those that don't know) star in Phantom of the Opera in Toronto a buncha years back! That guy's good!
4 up, 0 down
jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 9:58:04 AM
Haha yea this is not the first time I've done that though.
Off topic, I finally got rid of my junk LCD 32" "Proton" TV (that didn't even display true HD, I was using component cables because the HDMI ports were fried) and upgraded to a Vizio Razor LED 42". Holy cow! I can't believe the difference and what I've been missing out on. I spent almost my entire night popping in different PS3 games. Socom 4 and Killzone 3 look fantastic. I got it on Amazon for $660. Not bad considering Samsung's and LG's comparable models are almost $100-300 more.
3 up, 0 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:19:16 AM
1 up, 0 down
jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:26:21 AM
2 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:03:19 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
CaptRon
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:07:23 PM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:14:39 PM
5 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 8:56:14 PM
Yup, I agree!
Anybody who dares to come into my house to rob my games, will have to figure out a whole new way to carry them out my door without any limbs left.
0 up, 0 down
556pineapple
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:22:14 PM
Reply
I honestly feel that the people inspired to kill by games were mentally disturbed already. It just so happened that a game set them off, when it really could have been anything at all. Take away the games, I'd bet you they'd still kill.
Maybe I'm getting a bit of subject here, but it's the parents' responsibility to raise their children properly. Quit blaming the entertainment industry and do some real parenting already.
1 up, 0 down
Oyashiro
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:29:45 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
A2K78
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:35:25 PM
Reply
Overall to that violent video cut down on violent is ridiculous.
2 up, 7 down
Jawknee
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 11:00:55 PM
3 up, 6 down
Gordo
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 11:19:39 PM
Thankfully Europe and Australia doesn't agree with this hypothesis! We'll stick with our strict gun laws and our murder rate a fraction of yours!
9 up, 4 down
Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 12:40:32 AM
You are forgetting the murders are being done by people who illegally possess a firearm and are criminals. I would rather have a gun on me to protect myself and family members than not have one like other countries which is just begging for more trouble if they find out you aren't armed and have valuables in your home.
I would rather be safe than sorry. I'm glad we have rights to own guns as long as we do it legally.
Last edited by Clamedeus on 6/22/2011 12:41:56 AM
5 up, 2 down
Gordo
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 1:05:46 AM
As a Scot our Police don't even carry guns unless they are in a specialist armed response team, so I was just interested in peoples ideas that more guns = less violence.
Last edited by Gordo on 6/22/2011 1:06:44 AM
4 up, 1 down
Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 1:17:42 AM
But all I'm saying is I'm glad we are able to carry guns, I just wish there was a way criminals wouldn't be able to get a weapon which would be impossible to do.
3 up, 3 down
Fane1024
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 2:20:35 AM
From where do you think criminals get their guns, the gun fairy?
If there were no guns for sale, criminals *wouldn't* be able to get their hands on them.
Even leaving aside that question, are you really so naive that you think there is some fundamental separation between "criminals" (Them) and "law-abiding citizens" (Us)? All criminals were law-abiding citizens until they weren't.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 6/22/2011 2:23:04 AM
4 up, 6 down
Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 2:36:10 AM
"From where do you think criminals get their guns, the gun fairy?
If there were no guns for sale, criminals *wouldn't* be able to get their hands on them."
...really? Did you know you can buy guns from people off the street that they possess illegally stolen from people, or smuggled in? People don't need to go into a store and buy one because it's on sale. Come on now.
4 up, 2 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:38:00 AM
No, more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens who know how to use them for proper self defense means less crime. A home invader or robber is less likely to break into some ones home or rob a liquor store in states with less control than they are states with more gun control.
"Thankfully Europe and Australia doesn't agree with this hypothesis! We'll stick with our strict gun laws and our murder rate a fraction of yours!"
Those populations pale in comparison to that of the United States. That's the reason your violent crime rate seems lower. Not because you have more gun control laws.
"From where do you think criminals get their guns, the gun fairy?"
Most criminals get guns through illegal sales or off the streets from black market gun dealers as they are not allowed to purchase guns legally. Outlawing guns only ensures outlaws have guns. There is a reason violent crime is so much higher in places like Chicago vs places like Texas. Taking my right to own a firearm away only takes away my ability to defend myself from those who don't follow the law anyway. The playing field needs to even so to speak.
I was against gun ownership during a period in my life until I started doing real research instead of thinking about the issue with emotions and illinformed opinions. Having the ability to protect myself and my family is an issue of personal freedom and independence for us Americans and it's something a great majority of us are proud of. There are nearly 350 million prople in the USA, there are not enough cops to be everywhere at anytime.
Say I were to come home one day and find an intruder raping my wife, am I to go back outside and call the cops and wait as she is being brutalized? Hell no, I would shoot the SOB and I would be well within my rights to do so. Read John Lotts book, More Guns, Less Crime. It debunks all the gun control advocates claims quite effectively. Anyways, I'm done discussing this. Just wanted to acknowledge the rare moment in which I can agree with A2K78.
Last edited by Jawknee on 6/22/2011 3:43:00 AM
5 up, 3 down
Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:55:58 AM
I suck at this. Lol
4 up, 1 down
tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 6:24:58 AM
If I were a criminal and a gun was unavailable, I would just as quickly beat your brains out with a baseball bat. Should we get rid of baseball bats too?
4 up, 1 down
Ludicrous_Liam
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:04:08 AM
3 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:28:09 AM
So, in short, it doesn't really make sense for US citizens to suddenly not be allowed to have them. As for me (a Canadian), I've only ever seen a firearm on law enforcement officers. That's it. And yeah... our murder rate is astronomically lower (per capita) than the US's. I mean, just look at the difference between Detroit and Windsor. They are literally across the river from each other. Windsor sees -maybe- 3 murders in a year. How many do you think occur in Detroit?
Anyways, I've never touched a gun, and I've never felt the need to own one. I also doubt I ever will own a gun. Half the time, I don't even lock my front door when I leave. And never when I'm home. No one's going to try to rob me. (Obviously I lock up when gone for longer periods of time.)
There's definitely a huge difference between that sort of culture in the US and most every other first world country. I mean... it's unique in that it's a country born out of war. Your anthem sings about "bombs bursting in air". Obviously, the right to bear arms is a deep-seeded right that dates back to forever. I mean... the culture of firearms is written right there in your anthem for the whole world to hear. You know?
Anyways, as an outsider looking in, to us it certainly seems strange to think everyone ought to have a gun. And I admittedly chuckle every time I hear that line about rockets and bombs bursting in air (and chuckle even more when people sing that part with more emphasis than every other line. lol)
But in all honesty, it's silly to suggest Americans should somehow stop owning guns. It's in their culture for the long run, and due to the accessibility of firearms, it would be irresponsible to disallow people the right to protect themselves there. They have been there since day one. We other countries have had the luxury of being able to amend our laws as firearms came into existence over years and years. But they -started- with pretty much everyone owning one (since they were all pretty much militia or needing to protect themselves during the war for independence).
But you are right, Fane (et al), restrictions on firearms is necessary, I think so too. But Americans are so deep into public distribution, there's no backing out now. Not safely, anyways.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 6/22/2011 10:29:13 AM
4 up, 4 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:36:57 AM
That baseball bat analogy isn't very good. That makes sense for pre-meditated murders by desensitized individuals actively engaged in crime setting out for a specific mission, however, for murders of passion or accidental manslaughter or mass-murdering, it's -significantly- less likely to occur without a firearm. That's a well known and established idea. A baseball bat requires much more brutality and an incredible disconnect between action and moral reservation. A gun can cause damage in the blink of an eye with ease.
And then there's the obvious point of range. lol Someone intent on hurting people with a gun is far more likely to injure multiple people, and they are far less likely to be stopped.
4 up, 2 down
jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 11:12:38 AM
Last edited by jimmyhandsome on 6/22/2011 11:13:11 AM
2 up, 0 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 11:17:42 AM
4 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 11:18:34 AM
As I said, it's an issue of personal freedom and indapendence. And like you said it's rooted deep in our haritage. There are a lot more people in the US than there are in Canada. We as free people need to be allowed to protect ourselves when law enforcement cannot. I often find that the same people who wish to take our guns away also want to control the most personal aspects of our lives. Those people have a tendency to gravitate towards tyranny to make it happen too. I don't trust those people as far as I can throw them and that isn't far.
4 up, 4 down
tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 4:27:32 PM
My analogy works just fine for my point I was making. Anyone that wants to cause you harm, can and will do so, with or without a firearm. Ease of killing, accidental killing, or incidental killing, is not a good argument against gun ownership. Americans own firearms for different reasons such as hunting, sporting, and self defense.
Some people will allow criminals to rob them of their rights (to bear arms), their belongings, and their life.
0 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 5:44:14 PM
But that's just my point! It's become almost a necessity in the States! Why is it not the case in every other first world country??
Doesn't it seem odd that every reasoning you have to own a gun (especially in your final sentence there) somehow is COMPLETELY inapplicable to me, our UK and AU friends??
Thus my point stands... only in the States does it make sense. And like Jawk and I said, it's deeply rooted in your culture. SO deeply, in fact, that it's even rooted into your anthem.
Now... if anyone wants to cause me harm, you are right. They will do so (or attempt) to do so with or without a firearm. But just the reverse applies too, in terms of self defense. It's not a justification for firearms.
I guess I'm just glad I don't have to worry about being confronted by a gun. Hence, no need for one myself. Ya dig the cycle there? That's the cycle the US is in and will never get out of. It doesn't change the fact it's not applicable to me or anyone else outside US.
Statistical studies -CLEARLY- show in any intro to criminology class, that attempted murder is far more likely to occur if a gun is available. Without one, an attack, in many cases, won't even begin to occur.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 6/22/2011 5:54:04 PM
3 up, 1 down
tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 5:59:13 PM
0 up, 1 down
tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:12:12 PM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, June 23, 2011 @ 12:03:32 AM
You're both nuts if you think that throwing more fuel on a fire helps put the fire out, or dampen it down. More guns = less crime? No, that's not simply counter intuitive, it's utterly wrong.
Take a look at western societies with negligible or zero gun ownership and examine the comparative crime rates, it isn't pretty reading from what I remember.
3 up, 1 down
Fane1024
Thursday, June 23, 2011 @ 5:32:38 AM
Dude, you made my point. No guns in people's houses, no guns on the street.
I was, of course, speaking in the abstract. Underdog is right: getting from our current hideous mess to a sane condition requires putting the genie back in the bottle.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership (we had a gun until recently), just the stupid idea that guns are useful for self defense.
Well hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ole fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me?
2 up, 2 down
Clamedeus
Friday, June 24, 2011 @ 3:08:01 PM
0 up, 1 down
Fane1024
Saturday, June 25, 2011 @ 1:51:57 AM
I ignored that suggestion because it represents what, maybe 1% of guns on the street within the U.S.
I'm sure when Mexican gang members sneak across the border, they bring a few guns, but those guns probably came from the States in the first place.
In any event, my point is that if no one but military and police can legally possess firearms, fewer get manufactured and they are nearly impossible for criminals to acquire. Plus, even if they do acquire guns, the guns are so rare and expensive that the criminals will tend to keep them even after they are used in crimes, which makes both the guns and the criminals easier to track.
Give up. Your position is based on single-tier thinking. You clearly haven't considered the complexities of the situation. More guns cannot ever result in less gun violence.
I've admitted that there's no magic wand which will fix things with one wave, but it is an incontrovertible fact that reducing access to guns on a worldwide scale would drastically decrease gun violence.
p.s. tes, if your gun is in a safe, how will it be useful if you're ever in danger?
Last edited by Fane1024 on 6/25/2011 1:55:45 AM
0 up, 1 down
BIGRED15
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 10:41:13 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
A2K78
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 1:14:48 AM
Reply
More guns = less crime
Less guns = advantage criminals/represssive governments
If there is one thing I hate is how the fact the gun control crowd like to scare people into thinking that the avaliablity of guns will somehow lead to high levels of crime. Truth is the avaliablity of does the opposite and its for this why I am against all forms of gun control e.g. bans on firearm types, ammo types, background checks, etc. The same goes for switchblade knives.
Last edited by A2K78 on 6/22/2011 1:19:10 AM
3 up, 4 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:47:20 AM
6 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:43:00 AM
What that gun control crowd forgets to acknowledge is the over-saturation of guns in existence in the US. It is pretty much impossible to register all guns, and at this point, would just leave good citizens in the US in high crime areas more vulnerable.
I believe no guns for civilians is ideal, but unrealistic in the states.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 6/22/2011 10:45:18 AM
3 up, 1 down
JMO_INDY
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 2:02:55 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
___________
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 4:04:12 AM
Reply
which should you believe?
tis the problem with these so called "studies" there constantly contradicting each other.
1 up, 2 down
JMO_INDY
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:00:58 AM
2 up, 3 down
AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:37:02 AM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
gumbi
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:12:40 AM
He didn't stab a guy because GTA told him to, he did it because he's f***ed up in the head.
Video games don't make bad people, but they get blamed when bad people do the things they see in video games.
Television and Movies don't make stupid people, but they get blamed when stupid people do the dumb sh** they see on TV.
3 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:47:43 PM
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 6/22/2011 7:50:34 PM
0 up, 1 down
gangan19
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 9:15:21 AM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:47:49 AM
2 up, 0 down
gumbi
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 10:42:52 AM
Reply
Entertainment mediums like Television, Movies, Video Games, etc... do NOT make Bad or Good people.
A bad person is a bad person. Bad people do bad things. What made them bad? Who knows? Parents, living conditions, adverse circumstance, tragedy, genetics, or just plain old mental illness. The bad things they do and where they got the idea from is irrelevant because they were going to do something terrible, regardless. Chastising the entertainment industry and blaming it for the actions of bad people just makes no sense to me. I'm sorry, I don't get it, I think it's a stupid notion and a cop out for those not willing to take responsibility.
Good people are good people and they don't do the terrible things they see all over the place because they know better. What made them good? See the list above for bad people, same idea. It sure as hell wasn't the TV they watched or the video games they played...
This needs to be put to rest. Put the money wasted on all these 'studies' into something useful.
5 up, 1 down
Fane1024
Thursday, June 23, 2011 @ 5:42:57 AM
Do the good people wear white hats and the bad people black hats?
Everyone is capable of evil (and probably good as well, but there's less evidence of that).
Get a "good person" angry enough or desperate enough and he'll do something heinous.
Hell, most "good people" commit small acts of evil on a daily basis.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 6/23/2011 5:51:18 AM
0 up, 0 down
gumbi
Thursday, June 23, 2011 @ 8:27:22 AM
Maybe instead of bad people/good people I should say 'people who do bad things' and 'people who do good things'. Their actions, good or bad, are not the result of TV, movies, or video games.
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 3:35:41 PM
Reply
there are very many subtle factors at work inside a person that result in their attitude, personality and actions. The recent study discussed here that indicated that games can cause an increase in aggression and a suggestion that desensitization is also a problem, is not contradicted by this research.
Violent crimes are not primarily caused by desensitization and small increases in aggression. So having a study on one hand that links increased aggression to violence in games, does not mean that on the other hand a study showing video games can help (in some fashion) reduce violent crime is contradicting the first study, or that they are incompatible results.
Video games are often used as a form of relaxation by people, this could explain why it has an impact to reduce violent crime - gamers that might otherwise commit a crime are too busy blowing away zombies.
This is a complex subject area, and I think we need to be really careful about jumping on a specific study because it appears in a broad way to support our personal opinions. It's quite possible for this study and Dr B's study to be equally valid and correct, as each deals with a different part of the subject.
4 up, 1 down
tes37
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 5:10:37 PM
One study does not contradict the other. Had the first study concluded that people harm others after playing, then there would be one.
Edited for a comment that could've been taken two ways.
Last edited by tes37 on 6/22/2011 5:16:13 PM
1 up, 0 down
Ather
Friday, June 24, 2011 @ 1:41:42 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Nas Is Like
Reply
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:33:45 PM