An attack against the innocent man is, by all means, a tragedy. There is no possible justification for such an action and due to human nature, we cannot comprehend how or why a person would harm another. Because of this, we attempt to explain violent acts in the only way we know how: by placing the blame upon an exterior force. Nearly all acts of violence are a product of an agenda of a sort, but we tend to blame the existence of said agenda on something else. One controversial theory on the motive of violence involves the concept of media containing violence inspiring true acts of violence. From the Columbine shooting to the Sandy Hook shooting, the placement of blame upon the media (particularly video games) happened before blame was placed on the actual motive. Due to how common this controversy arises, the question is raised: does violent media generate violent actions?

It is a commonly-known fact that the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were avid players of the video game "Doom." For those who are unaware, "Doom"is a video game following a space marine on Mars who must fight of demons in order to survive. "Doom," while often regarded as one of the most influential first-person-shooters in history, was also heavily criticized for its depictions of extreme violence. Not only were the shooters obsessed with the game, they also made many references it in regards to their upcoming attack, stating that the attack would resemble the game. At first thought it would appear that the game may have influenced the teens, but with more thorough research, one may find that there are far more likely influence. Both shooters were ostracized by their peers and faced large amounts of bullying. Both teens also suffered from depression, and it is likely that Eric Harris suffered from psychopathy. Considering that these shooters represent a small minority of violent gamers, is it truly safe to say that video games cause violence, when a vast majority of video game players do not commit such acts?

If you watch a few minutes of footage from the newest installment in the "Doom" game series, you'll see why it's notorious for being excessively graphic — there's a lot of dramatic and stylized bloodshed. Here's a question for you: If you were to watch another video about death — one that's less graphic on the surface, but that happened in real life (e.g., Budd Dwyer's TV-aired suicide in 1987) — how would your reaction be different from the one you had to the game's more violent, simulated content? If you have not witnessed a real-life death, you'd very likely be shocked by how subtle it truly is — the fact that the end of a real life could come so quickly might be more disturbing to you than an almost absurdly violent video game killing. Why is that?

The reason why, of course, is because the video game footage is obviously false. The violence is merely a caricature of what actually happens. Violent video games do not strive to emulate reality, nor do gamers strive to make them reality. There is a barrier between fiction and reality, and most people can recognize this. Not only is violent media typically harmless, it can also be beneficial. Violent games are shown to help relieve stress and even promote cognitive function. Yes, these games may be violent, but the healthy mind knows it is not real. Players of violent video games are disgusted by actual acts of violence, as these are far different and far more true than the violence they experience and partake in within fiction. Video games, as they are intended to be far from reality, truly are.

While there have been cases of violent acts inspired by video games, this can certainly not account for all of the well-adjusted, healthy players of violent video games who would never even dream of committing violent acts. Video games are a healthy escape from reality, and should be praised for being an extraordinary innovation, rather than criticized for being a staple of the modern world.