Miller 1 Molly Miller Dr.

Lisette Gibson UC 110 5 December 2013 Broken Link [Michael Carneal] reached into his backpack for an ammunition clip, and loaded [his] gun [as everyone ignored him]. With a loud boom, the percussion bounced off the walls, stunning the crowd. Five more shots followed, as Michael swung his arms in an arc before the students, who were now falling down (Newman 4). Reading these bone-chilling words inevitably brings up the question, Why did he do it? Most Americans immediately point the finger at external factors and blame movies, television shows, or violent video games for school shootings. C.J. Ferguson explains, the notion that viewing media violence contributes to violent behavior [has] never [been] the recipient of good supporting data (Wrong Turn 144). Especially when research shows juvenile murders decreasing by 71.9%, while the amount of video games has reached its peak in sales within the last thirteen years (procon.org). When fourteen-year-old Michael was asked, Why? he responded, I guess it was because they ignored me. I had guns, I brought them to school, I showed them to them, and they were still ignoring me (Newman 33). His reasoning had no implications of media influence but suggested an internal incentive. Ferguson suggests, "Part of the problem [with blaming] video games [is] the implication that young school shooters [represent] a distinct group of individuals from adults who commit mass homicides (Wrong Turn 150). Whereas, they are all individuals with one factor: mental illness. Perpetrator psychosis has challenged the link between

Miller 2 school shooters and violent video game consumption through the research behind aggression and individual profiling. The most prominent link between violent video games and school shootings is video games contribution to direct acts of aggression. There have been both experimental and correlational research studies throughout the past couple decades that have attempted to find experimental evidence behind this link (Ferguson, Moral Panic, 26). Ferguson explains that, participants [in experimental studies] (usually college students) are exposed to either a violent or non-violent game, and then observed during some task that is presumed to be related, if only distantly, to aggression (Moral Panic 26). The results were not well defined, and only showed minimal acts of aggression (Ferguson, Moral Panic, 26). As with correlational research, Ferguson shows that, some [found] no relationship, and others [found] that violent games may reduce aggression (Moral Panic 27). Within these studies it is evident there is not solid research to directly link the theory of direct acts of aggression. However, other studies have been done on whether or not video games increase aggressive emotions. Studies related to video games tendencies to increase aggressive emotions have given more concrete results. Unlike the experimental and correlational results that Ferguson discusses, Craig Anderson exemplifies studies that found high exposure to violent video games [were] associated with lower levels of empathy and more positive attitudes towards violence (Video Games 145). From the studies there are conclusions that there are both long short-term and longterm effects of violent video game usage (Anderson, Video Games, 147). The short-term effects deal with boosted aggressive stimulation, and the long-term effects refer to repeated exposure which can cause stronger aggressive stimulation (Anderson, Video Games, 147). Anderson shows that the study argues, When aggressive thoughts and scripts are more accessible in

Miller 3 memory, they tend to lead people to interpret events that occur to them in a more hostile way (Video Games 148). Anti-video gamers believe this to be the key in their argument. Except, this point does not seem to bother those against the link between video games and school shootings. Much like Fergusons conclusions, Jonathon Freedman argues that there is no direct connection between aggression and violent video games. He points out that researching aggression misses the mark, because it doesnt even deal with the question of whether it leads to criminal violent behavior or real violence (Freedman 306). David Kushner backs up Freedman by offering the idea that the studies do not know how to define aggression itself (Video Games 151). The studies are using aggression and violence interchangeably, but like Ferguson showed in the experimental studies, the evidence behind aggressive thoughts turning into aggressive acts after video game exposure are slim to none. For example, Kushner mentions that most sports cause aggressive thoughts, but no one is calling for [those] games to be banned (Video Games 153). Especially when children crime rates are at the lowest they have been since the 1990s, it is almost impossible to make the link between school shootings and violent video games (Kushner, Video Games, 154). Anti-gamers make numerous connections between video game violence and school shootings, but this connection has many flaws. After the columbine shooting, the fact that the two shooters avidly played the violent video game, Doom, was a major scare. Immediately people began to draw conclusions, and the generalization of all school shooters started uproar. However, when a study was done with Doom, there were several instances of less aggressive behavior after playing the game (Kushner, Video Games, 153). It is mentioned by Charles Herold that video games are harmless, because it is evident that video game violence does not compare

Miller 4 to real life violence and gamers know the difference (Video Games 170). As the evidence for a direct link between school shootings and violent video games becomes less probable, other answers become more credible. With the research behind school shooter profiles, there became more concrete links between school shootings and the individual. It is evident that with the media constantly feeding society the idea of violent video games being the culprit of violence, there are some broken links. Yes, video games may cause aggression internally, but it seems there has to be something else that contributes to that aggression becoming violent. Only 12% of the school shooters showed interest in violent video games, so Ferguson suggests, society might spend too much time focusing on the idiosyncratic features (Wrong Turn 150). Therefore, research from individual profiling should become the focus. Research involving profiling has developed many commonalities between shooters. Even though it is hard to do studies on perpetrators, because most committed suicide, there were studies done on 37 shooters with 10 living interviews (Ferguson, Wrong Turn, 150). One key common trend was the lack of consumption of violent media; 15% had interest violent video games (Ferguson, Wrong Turn, 151). The most shocking fact was that 37% of the perpetrators exposure to violence was found in their own writings (Ferguson, Wrong Turn, 151). 41% had normal social trends, but 71% admitted to being bullied (Ferguson, Wrong Turn, 151). The bulk of the commonalities were found within mental illnesses: 98% went through loss, 78% were suicidal, and 61% were depressed (Ferguson, Wrong Turn, 151). It is evident from these internal commonalities that society must focus on mental illness, because in most cases their illnesses were never dealt with. Even though these statistics all provide commonalities, pulling the most common will give more depth to the conclusion.

Miller 5 From these results the most common internal problems revolve around rejection. There are major cases of rejection that can happen within a childs upbringing. The most common is peer rejection. With over half of the perpetrators admitting to being bullied, it is apparent that being rejected and humiliated by peers has a long-term effect on psychosis. Though a good amount of the shooters had normal social lives, being in a social group does not always mean they are accepted within those groups (Leary 204). Going back to columbine, even though the boys were avid violent video game players, their motives were clearly to take out revenge on those who bullied them. Multiple students who were in the library during the shooting claimed that each shooter said to kill anyone with a sports jersey. This is not a coincidence; it is apparent that students who played sports bullied them, and these motives show no connection to their high violent video game usage. Within peer rejection there is also high evidence of romantic breakups becoming a factor (Leary 204). In order to further see how rejection affected perpetrators, Leary shares other studies looking solely at rejection. Within the study, shooters were looked at from 1995 until 2001 (Leary 204). Leary shows, In 12 of the 15 the perpetrator had been subject to a pattern of malicious teasing, and in half had experienced a recent romantic breakup (210). Even though these results show great evidence, much like Ferguson and Kushner suggest there is no direct link between rejection and school shootings (Leary 210). Katherine Newman believes that, the answers are embedded in two places: the psychological troubles that [brew] on the inside and the sociological bruises that [are] collected as [students] engage with peer groups (22). When looking at the psychological and sociological standpoint, of those 12 who were bullied, all had psychological problems (Leary 210). As a result, it is evident a concrete theory behind school shootings is the evident psychological problems that cause them to react to rejection through violence.

Miller 6 Going back to the beginning, Michael Carneal gives a great representation of this theory. Looking at his answer to why, it is clear that he was bullied, however, analyzing therapy sessions after his shootings reveal serious psychological damage. Michael grew up with both his parents, and his sister, Kelly. Even from the beginning of his life he showed to have problems measuring up to his sister, and it caused extreme anxiety (Newman 24). There were many red flags in his every day life. He would hide knives under his bed to protect himself from demons, and he would wrap multiple towels around himself coming from the shower to hide from enemies (Newman 25). Even though he was going through these psychological problems he still maintained a social life, but like Leary explained, he was extremely rejected within these social groups (Newman 25). Students would call him a homosexual, and it was even published in the school gossip column (Newman 27). There were disturbing accounts of a ten-page story on his computer that dealt with cartoon characters being gruesomely harmed (Newman 26). There was also a story about a young boy whose peers pretended to be friends with, and in the end they are killed (Newman 26). All of these things seemed to be missed, and his sessions bring light to these dark facts. The psychiatrist who interviewed Michael shared his true condition. The psychiatrist reveals, Michael is a young man who couldnt function socially, who attracted aggressive bullies, because he was awkward and never fought back, who tried to curry favor with kids whose attention he craved, and who imploded in school because these social failures deepened his clinical depression (Newman 26). Therefore, looking at his reasoning, it is clear that these factors are extremely critical in the perpetrator profiling. Except, if all of these things can happen without violent video game usage, why does society resort back to unpromising results? Ferguson shows this answer goes back to moral panic within society (Moral Panic).

Miller 7 Ferguson explains, video games present something of a straw man by which politicians can create an appearance of taking action against crime (Moral Panic 30). As society needs answers, the media resorts to the easiest possibilities. Since video games are one of the newest factors, researchers tend to gravitate towards the unknown sectors (Ferguson, Moral Panic, 31). Most people want tangible results, so the risk behind showing the unpredictability of mental illness is far too risky (Ferguson, Moral Panic, 34). Though the media is trying to avoid panic, these false links create more room for unnecessary panic (Ferguson, Moral Panic, 34). Since the focus is placed on unconvincing factors, many miss the red flags behind sociological and psychological issues. When it comes to be aware of these outbreaks, it is impossible to predict, but it is possible to be aware of the signs. It is evident that we need to spend time fixing prevention methods (Ferguson, Wrong Turn, 153). When focusing on prevention, one of the main concerns, according to Ferguson, is the fact that, society has not yet developed an appetite for funding adequate mental health services for youth at risk (Wrong Turn 153). In most cases there are many signs, much like Michael Carneal, that are ignored. In 93% of the cases studied by Ferguson, the perpetrators showed troubling behaviors (Wrong Turn 151). What is even more alarming is that fact that 81% of them informed someone of their plan (Wrong Turn 151). These missed preventions are the main problem within the system, but there are also other prevention efforts within the schools. As discussed before, bullying has a high influence on sociological rejection within the cases. Therefore, bullying prevention would help further prevent tradegies within schools. Some of these programs directly try to intervene by trying to encourage students to get along through different activities (Dill 115). There are also counseling strategies that encourage students to

Miller 8 rebuild their lives (Dill 116). Dill shows that, Assertiveness training can benefit all pupils but especially those at risk of being victims (116). Even though not all instances can be prevented, the act of trying to be aware of bullying will continue to make a difference. Bringing all of these facts and realizations together can really put into perspective the reality of our nations flaws when dealing with youth violence. Rather than focusing on individuals, unproductive focus on external factors has corrupted peoples mindset of harmless media. Through the reality of aggression and further research of perpetrator profiling, the truth behind the link between sociological and psychological factors with school shootings will hopefully become the causation. Ferguson explains violent video games perfectly by explaining, [they are] arguably synonymous to peanut butter: a perfectly harmless indulgence for the vast majority, but potentially harmful to a tiny minority (Moral Panic 28). Word Count: 2,303

Miller 9 Works Cited Anderson, Craig. Video Games. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2010. Print. Dill, Karen E., et al. "Recurrent Issues In Efforts To Prevent Homicidal Youth Violence In Schools: Expert Opinions." New Directions For Youth Development 2011.129 (2011): 113-128. Academic Search Complete. 28 March. 2014. Ferguson, Christopher J., Mark Coulson, and Jane Barnett. "Psychological Profiles Of School Shooters: Positive Directions And One Big Wrong Turn." Journal Of Police Crisis Negotiations 11.2 (2011): 141-158. Academic Search Complete. 28 March. 2014. Ferguson, Christopher J. "The School Shooting/violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?" Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 5.1-2 (2008): 25-37. Print. Freedman, Jonathan L. Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2002. Print. Leary, Mark R., Robin M. Kowalski, Laura Smith, and Stephen Phillips. "Teasing, Rejection, and Violence: Case Studies of the School Shootings." Aggressive Behavior 29.3 (2003): 202-14. Print. Newman, Katherine S. Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. New York: Basic, 2004. Print. ProCon.org. "Video Games ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 March. 204.