OPINION & EDITORIAL
Video game violence not to blame for Virginia Tech shooting
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Charles Lim:
- Blackwater security firm raises questions of sovereignty, authority (October 4, 2007)
- Compassionate care measure heartless (September 19, 2007)
- Breast feeding an unnatural target (September 5, 2007)
- Despite failings, Bush right on water bill veto (November 14, 2007)
- Fake press raises disturbing questions (October 31, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A day of mourning (April 17, 2007)
- Child gun access allows shootings (October 15, 2007)
- Sen. Robson exploits Virginia tragedy (August 31, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Universities nationwide must direct attention to student security (April 19, 2007)
by Charles Lim
Thursday, April 26, 2007
It's been two weeks since I wrote about the use of tragedies to further political agendas, and it seems the Herald's circulation isn't wide enough to reach outside of Madison and have an effect on the national stage. The cycle of exploitation goes on. As the country mourns and families are vulnerable, a wave of pundits has descended onto the Virginia Tech murders like vultures on fresh carrion. Offering knee-jerk explanations, none backed by empirical evidence, mind you, these agenda pushers wrap themselves in a cloak of authority by senselessly debasing a complex tragedy into empty political crusades.
Groups all over the television are blaming everything ranging from psychiatry (Scientologists) to rock 'n' roll (old people) and the war in Iraq (homeless guy who calls me Nancy) as the sole catalysts to Cho Seung-Hui's rampage. By doing so, they are preying on the nation's sense of hopelessness in a time when America is scared enough to accept those easy answers, and to do so is grossly irresponsible. Where these fear mongers have the best chance of succeeding, however, is targeting the blame on a favorite scapegoat: video games.
We have seen this done countless times before. The Columbine High School shooting is most recent in memory, and every school shooting since it has been drudged up as a point of contention. The recent events are no exception. When the first scant details emerged a few hours after the disaster, lobbyist Jack Thompson came on Fox News and vehemently pointed to electronic media as the cause, stating, "These are real lives. These are real people that are in the ground now because of this game. I have no doubt about it." To immediately launch into political diatribe with zero information about the shooter and to so nefariously try to harness malice and panic for personal means is so outlandish that this writer has not the vocabulary to describe Mr. Thompson's character.
Really, Mr. Thompson? It was because of video games? That would be difficult seeing that Cho's residence had not a single game-related accessory within it, nor did any of his suitemates ever witness him "training to kill" using games as you suggest. How could Charles Whitman, perpetrator of the deadliest school shooting before Virginia Tech, been motivated to terrorize University of Texas in Austin in 1966 when there was nary a video console in existence?
Instead of trusting your own distorted vision of American youth, how about you ask them yourself if any of us has been motivated to unleash real world violence after a round of Halo. How about in Japan, where games play an infinitely larger role in mainstream society, yet the country experiences less than half the gun deaths per year that America does daily? How about the near scientific consensus that there is no causation between violent media and a dysfunctional individual? A more sensible conclusion would be that violent people are drawn to violent media, but even that is too simple of an answer to really be satisfactory.
What you must learn, Mr. Thompson, Dr. Phil and all the other crusaders, is that brandishing this type of alarmism simply proves you understand nothing about video games or the people who play them. To crucify something you know nothing about and to rest the blame of society's ills on its shoulders does not make you a hero — it makes you an ass.
Charles Lim (celim@wisc.edu) is a sophomore with no declared major.
Anonymous (April 26, 2007 @ 9:47am):
Well, in 1966 it was that evil acid rock, that's what it was.
Anonymous (April 26, 2007 @ 11:44am):
Video games could be to blame. Cho looked like the kinda loser who locked himself up playing video games 24/7.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 10:47am):
What makes video games great is they are not reality.
So if you will excuse me, I must pwn some noobs, cause noobs dont pwn themselves.
(well, if friendly fire is on and there are nades involved, sometimes they do, but not in general.)
Anonymous (April 29, 2007 @ 4:56pm):
"Things Don't Add Up -- Anomalies in the VA Tech Slayings"
by Salvador Astucia, April 27, 2007
As the world knows, April 16, 2007 was a horrific day in America. 33 students and faculty members died in a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. At 7:15 am, two young people--male and female--were shot and killed in a Virginia Tech dormitory room at West Ambler Johnston Hall. Two and a half hours later, at 9:45 am, police responded to shootings at Norris Hall, but the doors were barricaded shut. Within ten minutes, they entered the hall and found 31 dead bodies and approximately 30 injured students and faculty members. Among the dead was a 23-year-old male, of Korean origin. His face was badly disfigured from what police concluded was a self-inflicted gunshot wound. There are conflicting reports regarding this young man's name. The Washington Post has referred to him interchangeably as Seung Hui Cho, and Cho Seung Hui. Most reporters are calling him Cho Seung Hui; however, on April 21, 2007 (five days after the slayings), the Washington Post published a front-page article entitled "An Isolated Boy in a World of Strangers" where they repeatedly called him Seung Hui Cho. One would think our best and brightest journalists could get a few basic facts straight before they conclude without question that this young Korean man was indeed guilty of committing mass-murder. One would think a basic point of agreement would be the name of the perpetrator. But why trifle with minor details like the name of a dead Korean who reportedly shot roughly 60 people with two handguns, left approximately 30 survivors, none of whom were able to identify him? But the media says he's guilty, so that's all that matters. Case close.
Nevertheless, since the young man's name is a question, I will refer to him as Cho for the remainder of this article. Besides the anomaly of Cho's name, I have noticed lots of inconsistencies and peculiar occurrences regarding the Virginia Tech slayings. The "case closed" mentality centers around the fact that a package was received by NBC News a few days after the slayings, allegedly sent by Cho before he reportedly committed mass-murder and took his own life. The package reportedly contained a video tape of Cho spewing hateful remarks. It also contained voluminous documents, including two plays he authored, and other writings that espoused extreme political views, according to NBC News. He reportedly mailed the package to NBC News in between the two sets of killings, an event that is highly questionable in its own right. Upon receipt of the damning package by NBC, all serious investigations essentially evaporated. Did it occur to anyone that Cho had been set up to take the blame for the actions of others?
Here is a summary of questions and anomalies I have gathered so far:
1. How could one person kill 30 people in a matter of minutes?
2. No eye-witness identified Cho as the shooter.
3. Jay Leno publicly compared Cho to Lee Harvey Oswald.
4. Matt Lauer and the Washington Post claim Cho believed the U.S. Government murdered ex-Beatle John Lennon.
5. The news media has collectively labeled Cho an insane person, but with little evidence.
6. Emmanuel College professor, Nicholas Winset was fired for facilitating a discussion about the Virginia Tech slayings and the pros and cons of gun control.
7. There are conflicting accounts about the clothing worn by Cho while he was allegedly shooting his victims.
8. Why would a Korean--of all ethnicities--shame his family the way Cho did?
9. Cho was reportedly a loner, but Korean men are often shunned by Americans because of vast cultural differences.
10. Why did Cho commit suicide by shooting himself in the face?
11. How do we know it was Cho who mailed the incriminating video and documents to NBC News?
12. Why is Karl Thornhill not a suspect for the double homicide on the morning of April 16, 2007?
13. Could a satanic cult near Blacksburg have been involved in the slayings?
14. Why did Bush endorse witchcraft within the military shortly after the slayings?
The following points are the same issues previously raised, but with additional commentary:
Point # 1. How could one person kill 30 people in a matter of minutes? According to the news media, Cho shot approximately 60 people at Norris Hall, 30 of whom died immediately. Cho had no training in firearms and only used two handguns. Had he used a machine gun or a bomb, the high casualty number might not seem so strange. But he only used two handguns, and apparently no one tried to overpower him. One would think that with approximately 60 shooting victims, at least one would have successfully overpowered him. No one is questioning how he accomplished this task, but it seems like an impossible feat for one person with no firearms training.
To read more, click here:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/vatech/anomalies.htm
END
To view Salvador Astucia's website, click here:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Anonymous (May 3, 2007 @ 11:05pm):
It's a Wisconsin cover-up. My name is Chongchen Saelee, I used to work on UW-Green Bay Fourth Estate. Do some research.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 12:32am):
why does it matter why cho killed those students , is it going to change what happened ? no. all that matters is that we work on a new strategy to avoid these types of situations alot like the design of windows in a building. windows were designed to let air out when the air inside was too much to bear , the reason why the window would be opened was usually because something smelt funny and that funny smell was usually a fart. there is no real motive behind farting , it just happens but as long as the window is there the smell can be controlled from spreading around the building.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
