Sanity, lone wolves, and violent video games

Anders Breivik: the Oslo shooter is “sane,” and going to jail.

On Friday, major news emerged from Norway: Oslo mass murderer Anders Breivik is going to jail, and has been declared legally sane.

From the beginning, attorneys have argued over Breivik’s metal state at the time of the killings. While one psychiatric team argued that he is a paranoid schizophrenic, similar to Tucson shooter Jared Loughner, or perhaps Aurora shooter James Holmes, the winning side argued that Breivik is “narcissistic and dissocial — having a complete disregard for others — but criminally sane.”

They stopped short of calling Breivik a psychopath or sociopath — a form of mental illness, to be sure, but not one that meets the legal definition of “criminally insane.” Instead, he’s classified as a “sane” man who falls into the category of “lone wolf” terrorist, in the same mold as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, and most recently, Sikh temple shooter Wade Michael Page.

So, there’s a dilemma here: is a sociopath — someone who is incapable of embracing the same values of “right” and “wrong” as mainstream society — truly sane? Just because someone is capable of understanding his actions, does that mean he was in his “right mind” when he carried out those actions? Or is he more like a dog that attacks indiscriminately — one of those rare canines whom re-training won’t help?

With so many shooters in the news right now, we have the opportunity to compare and to categorize. Some are obviously suffering some kind of psychosis; others fall into this “dissocial” or even sociopathic category.

But you’ll notice that none of them fall into the “violent video games clearly caused it” category, or the “heavy metal music clearly caused it” category, or even the “Satanism made him do it” category.

From the very beginning, because Breivik claimed he “trained” on Modern Warfare and played World of Warcraft many hours each day, many felt that video games somehow informed his mission.

Instead, it seems clear now that the games were for Breivik, as they are for millions of others, an outlet. A pastime. And, among the millions upon millions of people who play these games, Breivik was the only one who perpetrated such an attack. When such a vanishingly small percentage of gamers commit mass murder, there’s no way you can argue that video games incite mass murder.

I’m glad to see that the conversation has moved on; I can only hope it stays that way.

After horror, reclaiming power through games

A UK LARP gamer gets ready. Photo by Flickr user Bifford the Youngest.

Denmark: Land of Vikings, Beowulf, Niels Bohr, Mærsk ships, GSM phones, and … live-action role-playing?

In a land of 5.5 million people, roughly 100,000 LARP in some fashion, according to a recent article from TIME writer Nathan Thornburgh. As he points out, that’s bigger than the population of Indiana — and a higher per-capita role-playing rate than many other countries in the world. In his piece, Thornburgh examines why the Danes are so into LARPing — and the kinds of games they play.

To some extent, they explore the typical tropes: Lord of the Rings, for instance, is immensely popular. No surprises there. But Danes are also into much darker forms of role-playing: pretending to live in a prison camp for 48 hours, or unspooling what would have happened in Russia if the Nazis had won World War II. It’s not just adults playing, either; plenty of kids participate. Thornburgh speculates:

Larp might be a sensible diversion for restless minds in Denmark, which was recently named the happiest country on earth. Reality is simply more pleasant in Denmark than in many other places, so perhaps escapism means digging for more complicated, intense human interactions.

I’m not sure how much truth there is in this, which is to say, I don’t have enough data to compare. I know other LARPing groups go to some pretty dark places. For example, growing up, I knew people who played “Vampire: The Masquerade,” which got very twisted, personal, and psychological at certain points. And that didn’t come from kids who had trauma-free lives, either. It was a way for them to turn everyday horrors into something they could co-create and master.

Reading Thornburgh’s piece got me thinking about one of Denmark’s neighbors, Norway, which is still reeling from a mass shooting one year ago. Is there some way that role-playing could hasten Oslo’s healing? Would such pastimes only reopen barely healed wounds? Or would it depend on the type of game?

That thought brings me to a commentary that ran in the Baltimore Sun in the wake of the Aurora, Colorado, shootings, arguing (once again) that our media is too violent. Douglas MacKinnon writes:

After the tragedy in Aurora, I spoke with some teenage boys of friends of mine. Each and every one admitted to playing violent video games. Some on a daily basis for hours at a time. When I asked them how many “bad guys” they kill in these games (often times in the most gruesome and graphically visual ways imaginable), one of the boys said, “Oh, over the course of a year, I kill thousands of bad guys.”

…

There are more than 100 million “gamers” in our county. It stands to reason that if as a demographic, they are virtually slaughtering hundreds of millions of “bad guys,” then some may become desensitized to killing actual human beings and some may be pushed over the edge. In fact, the maniac in Norway who murdered tens of children admitted he used violent video games to practice his targeting.

His argument: especially in light of Aurora and Oslo, kids need to scale back their use of violent media. This, despite the fact that kids are killing “bad guys.” If we want to be black-and-white about it, Holmes and Breivik were “bad guys.” Yes, they’re real “bad guys,” and the guys in the video games are fictional. So is the killing. Most kids are well aware of the difference. It’s adults who seem to have the problem.

I’ll say it plainly:

Anyone in a real mass-shooting situation, or anyone close to such a situation, would feel frightened, horrified, powerless.

So how do you think killing some “bad guys” afterward might make them feel?

Powerless?

Probably not. We need to give kids — particularly kids suffering through horror — opportunities to reclaim feelings of agency. Role-playing games and video games provide ample opportunities.

Hardcore video-gaming: is it saving kids from violent street life, or ruining a generation?

In Somalia, boys face more danger out on the streets than they do in front of the game console. Is that true elsewhere? Photo by Flickr user tkru.

Somalia has been known for years as a place of extreme violence and lawlessness. Since civil war broke out in 1991, all people were at risk, but particularly young people, who faced either being recruited to fight or being caught in the crossfire.

Now that some cultural sanctions have lifted, Somali boys are playing video games — and many adults are glad. Well, kind of:

Some parents say the video games are helping to keep teens off the street, which in turn lowers the chances they might be recruited by al-Shabab. But many teens admit to skipping class to practice their gaming skills.

Although there are downsides to skipping school, of course, there’s one major upside: schools are where kids are most likely to be recruited into the al-Shabab militia, where they would be required to fight.

Mohamed Deq Abdullahi, a father of two teens, watched his boys play a soccer video game in a sweltering parlor on a recent sunny day. He sees the boys’ new hobby as a beneficial development.

“This is his daylong activity because I don’t want him get bored and go to war,” Abdullahi said. “The busier they stay the more tired they get and the more they ignore violence.”

The article doesn’t say so, but I suspect there’s another benefit to these kids’ gameplay: it allows them to process the violence of the past 20 years, all they’ve ever known, in a safe way, without real-life consequences. That’s much healthier for them than getting behind a real machine-gun and being told to fight their countrymen.

In that light, what can we make of a recent CNN article blaming video games (and porn) for “ruining a generation of young men?” It claims that too much gaming sets up players (only male players, for some reason) for addiction — specifically, “arousal addiction,” where gamers need more video games to reach the same “high.”

Oddly, the article cites Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik as a prime example of this phenomenon, even though he doesn’t exemplify the average gamer at all:

Norwegian mass murder suspect Anders Behring Breivik reported during his trial that he prepared his mind and body for his marksman-focused shooting of 77 people by playing “World of Warcraft” for a year and then “Call of Duty” for 16 hours a day.

… Except that it’s not clear whether Breivik was telling the truth. After all, in his manifesto he advised people who were training for similar terrorist attacks to claim they were keeping themselves busy with video games, when in fact they were planning things out. It’s also worth noting, in light of the Somalia piece, that if Breivik had been playing video games all day on July 22, 2011, 77 people might still be alive.

It’s true that playing hours upon hours of video games is likely to have some consequences. Kids who play this much miss out on other things. But it’s important to remember that they’re also getting many important things — positive things — out of that gameplay, and that the things they’re missing out on might be much, much worse. Somalia isn’t the only place where kids can get caught in the crossfire. In inner-city areas where gangs hold power, the risks for kids are quite similar. Research shows there’s less youth violence and crime in places where video games are easy to come by.

What “ruins” kids more: playing video games until their arms are sore, or jailtime and violence?

Why banning violent video games isn’t the answer

British MP Keith Vaz, who has a history of criticizing violent games, is calling for a “closer scrutiny” of first-person shooters. Photo courtesy UK Parliament.

In the wake of Norway terrorist Anders Breivik’s claims that Modern Warfare helped him train for a real-live massacre, British MP Keith Vaz says it’s time for Britain to take a closer look at violent first-person shooter video games.

Vaz’s motion says British parliament “is concerned that PEGI [Europe's video-game rating board] as a classification system can only provide an age-rating and not restrict ultra-violent content.” Although the motion has only picked up a handful of supporters since it was introduced, he continues to push the measure, even though Britain is already planning tighten video-game rules and make illegal to supply titles to people who aren’t old enough for the age rating.

Vaz has a history with violent video games. After a 14-year-old was murdered in 2004, the victim’s parents claimed they thought Manhunt inspired the killer. Vaz called for closer scrutiny of such games. Police dismissed the claim after it was discovered the victim, not the killer, was a fan of the game. (Britain later banned Manhunt 2, the country’s first such restriction.)

Vaz is also no fan of Bully or Counter-Strike, the latter of which was associated with race-related shootings in Malmö, Sweden.

Here’s the problem with such actions, which have been attempted in the United States as well, and usually are found in violation of the First Amendment: When someone like Breivik claims that video games are partly responsible for his killing spree, he’s letting himself off the hook. It wasn’t me that did it; it was the video games. Plenty of people have trouble owning up to their transgressions, especially criminals. Taking them at their word when they blame an outside “influence” legitimizes the idea that the crime isn’t their fault. Making laws based on such statements is even worse — it tells society that lawbreakers aren’t to blame for their own actions.

Is that what we really believe? If not, why do so many people support such laws?

Call of Duty: War game or propaganda tool?

Are video games making society more militaristic? One academic thinks so.

Did video games help Anders Breivik train for his terrorist attack in Norway? Victoria University lecturer John Martino says such questions are missing the point.

“What has not been addressed in the debate generated by violent military games is the role these games play in the process of ‘militarisation,’” Martino states in a CNET.au article published today.

In sum, he’s suggesting that the popularity and increasing realism of military-based games, particularly the best-selling Call of Duty franchise, is contributing to the “militarization of society.” But his article is riddled with errors and mistaken assumptions that leave his argument in the dust.

First, who is John Martino? His two most recent credits involve — you guessed it — looks at gaming and the militarization of culture, including “No Place for Noobs: Computer games and the Militarization of Youth Culture,” presented at the 6th Global Conference: Visions of Humanity in Cyberculture, Cyberspace, and Science Fiction in Oxford in July 2011, and “Gaming and the Militarization of Youth Culture: Some Initial remarks,” presented at the IADIS International Conference ICT, Society and Human Beings in Rome, also in July 2011.

Martino starts off with Wolfenstein and Doom, which are good places to start, if you’re going to talk about military shooters. He talks about how the military modified the game to help train soldiers. Anyone who thinks you can learn how to navigate a real-life war scene by playing through Doom‘s blocky mazes and fighting its pixelated enemies is arguably suffering from loss of contact with reality.

Anyhow, from there he gets into the fact that Call of Duty developers have worked with military consultants to make sure gameplay elements are realistic. This is the same as bringing in consultants for a film, such as Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line. Nobody would call the latter an effort to turn these films into “recruitment tools” — they would, in fact, be described as working toward historical accuracy.

Not Martino.

Such partnerships share the goal of working to enhance the training effectiveness of simulation technology.

Military shooters add to the already potent cultural tools that political systems have at their disposal for propaganda purposes.

Then, he stacks up his evidence that society is becoming more militarized:

1. “The commemoration of war (think Anzac Day) has become integral to our view of Australian history, and the place of Australia in the world.”

2. “Recent data published by the Stockholm International Peace Institute indicates that Australia is one of the largest military-spending nations in the world.”

These are his examples? Has he forgotten that much of the Western world has been engaged in some way with the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade? Has he forgotten that Australia is within striking distance of the unpredictable North Korea, and might have good reason to want to defend itself?

Martino leaves out obvious counter-examples, such as child soldiers in Africa or other countries where high-end video games aren’t readily available.

I find it much more plausible that the military is responsible for “militarizing” societies, and that kids who grow up in societies undergoing such change might seek military-style games as an outlet, and as a chance to safely explore their natural curiosity about what wartime is like.

Do you think he’s on to something? Are Call of Duty and other games making society more militarized? And, if so, is that a bad thing?

Oslo terrorist, World of Warcraft on trial in Norway

Norway terrorist Anders Breivik played a lot of World of Warcraft before his rampage, prosecutors say. But is that relevant?

The trial has begun for Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, accused of shooting and killing 77 people on Utoya Island last July after detonating a bomb in downtown Oslo. That means the trial on his favorite video games has also begun.

Last year, much was made of Breivik’s mention of Modern Warfare in his manifesto. Now, it has come to light that Breivik spent the entire year before his rampage living off his savings account and playing World of Warcraft as though it were a full-time job; prosecutors told the court that the extended gameplay was “a reward for his impending ‘martyrdom.’”

They also claimed that World of Warcraft is “a world of fantasy monsters, wizards, and knights performing violent ‘missions.’” You know, as if that had anything to do with the massacre of nearly 80 innocent people and the terrorization of thousands.

Fortunately, there are more reasoned voices out there (although it’s too bad they’re not in the courtroom). As Rollo Ross, a writer for the Huffington Post, puts it:

After playing one of these games for around five years (part time I might add), it is apparent to me that Breivik is not alone by any means in this passion. There is in my world alone a multitude of people, like Breivik, who have given up their normal reality to live within the game, but unlike Breivik, almost all are well-balanced people who can distinguish fantasy from reality.

There are over 10 million players globally on World of Warcraft, and I would suggest that around a fifth of them are full time players.

If these games really held this kind of negative influence over gamers’ psyches, the world would be awash with mass murderers.

Some will debate whether such full-time gameplay is a good idea (and Ross discusses who those players are — many of them unemployable, unemployed, and/or disabled), but that’s beside the point. While media outlets and naysayers will latch onto the video-game angle — for example, some Norwegian stores banned the sale of certain games after Breivik’s attack — the more germane question of Breivik’s mental state should be the focus.

Let’s take a look at his emotional responses from his time in court Monday:

Anders Breivik showed no emotion as a court read out gruesome details of the 77 people he murdered – but a 12 minute propaganda film outlining his beliefs caused the self-confessed killer to weep.

The 33-year-old was pictured wiping tears away from his face as the Oslo court were shown his film, which centres on Breivik’s belief that Western civilisation faces a threat from multiculturalism.

Is this the reaction of a sane, rational human being whose sense of compassion is fully developed? No. I’m no psychologist, but it looks to me much more like the reaction of a sociopath.

Sociopaths can seem like rational, everyday human beings, but at the root their moral compass is radically off-kilter. Their behavior can make us believe they are just like us. And that’s problematic, because it means when they commit horrific crimes, and we look for a motivation, we assume we’re looking for something so outrageous that it would drive us to kill. When nothing we come up with makes sense, we begin to grasp at straws, and that’s how explanations such as “it was the video games” can come into play.

So far, prosecutors don’t appear to be blaming Breivik’s rampage on WoW or any other video game. However, the fact that these games are being mentioned in the trial and in news coverage will suggest to readers that there is a connection. There isn’t. And the sooner we can clear such irrelevancies from the courtroom, the sooner we can begin to understand what makes mass killers like Breivik really tick.

Can RPGs bridge the Israel-Palestine conflict? Norway’s newest minister thinks so.

Heikki Holmås, Norway’s new minister of international development, believes role-playing games can solve real-world political problems.

Since the Israel-Palestine conflict began many decades ago, there’s one solution that probably hasn’t been tried: role-playing.

Heikki Holmås, Norway’s new minister of international development, is a lifelong D&D player and LARPer — and believes such games could help make headway in that longstanding struggle. He recently spoke with Imagonem, and mentioned a Norwegian LARP project taking place in Palestine this year:

I don’t know all the details, but there’s no doubt that you can put Israelis into the situation of the Palestinians and vice versa in a way that fosters understanding and builds bridges. Those things are an important aspect of role playing games which makes it possible to use them politically to create change.

His comments sound right in line with Jane McGonigal’s gospel about how gaming can solve real-world problems. Could it work?

Many remember when role-playing games were demonized after a pair of high-profile suicides by young men who played RPGs. Many of us laugh now at the idea that these games can harm people. In fact, they’re used in psychological settings, and in the classroom, because they’re recognized for powerful tools that teach players empathy. Given the chance to step into someone else’s personality and situation for a while, we learn a lot about them, whether they’re a treasure-hunting orc — or a lifelong political enemy.

Holmås had more to say about the benefits of role-playing games:

RPGs can be extremely relevant in putting people in situations they’re unfamiliar with. Save the Children have their refugee games. I have friends in Bergen who’ve run human rights-RPGs. But you have to be professional. You create real emotions when you play role playing games, real emotions that stick, he says.

That’s kind of the slightly scary aspect of role playing games, which has to be considered. At the same time, it’s what makes it possible for RPGs to change the world. LARP can change the world, because it lets people understand that humans under pressure may act differently than in the normal life, when you’re safe.

Doom creator: “Violent games reduce aggression”

John Carmack, who helped develop the classic first-person shooter Doom, says video games like his make players less aggressive. Should we listen to him?

When John Carmack helped develop the first Doom video game, released in 1993, chances are good that he didn’t realize what its effect would be. The game became so popular in the mid-1990s — when it was played by an estimated 10 million people — that it is credited with turning the practice of playing video games from a nerd hobby into a semi-mainstream pastime. So many people enjoyed this early first-person shooter, with its immersive quality, its low-fi horror, its ability to leave you craving your next turn at the computer, that it was bound to offend someone.

It has been called, among other things, a “mass murder simulator,” despite the fact that the single mass murder connected with Doom — at Columbine High School in 1999 — seems more closely connected with the mental condition of the teens who pulled it off. In general, according to research by the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Education, school shooters tend to be much less interested in video games than other boys their age, and much more prone to depression and attempted suicide.

And yet, in 2011, when Carmack claims that games like his are not progenitors of aggression, people still pause. After all, didn’t video games have something to do with Anders Breivik’s Norway rampage?

Here’s what Carmack told IndustryGamer:

“I really think, if anything, there is more evidence to show that the violent games reduce aggression and violence. There have actually been some studies about that, that it’s cathartic. If you go to QuakeCon and you walk by and you see the people there [and compare that to] a random cross section of a college campus, you’re probably going to find a more peaceful crowd of people at the gaming convention. I think it’s at worst neutral and potentially positive.”

I can hear you saying, “Of course he would say that. He helped create these kinds of games. He’s biased.” Yes, of course he’s biased. Probably most of the people involved in this topic are biased. To his credit, Carmack is closer to the gaming culture than most of the people who oppose violent video games are — and closer, even, to that culture than the researchers who claim such games are harmful. By “closer” I don’t mean he’s part of it, although he is. By “closer” I mean he sees it on a regular basis, the same way a waiter in a restaurant sees hundreds of people eat and knows that most of them don’t overeat, or get sick from their meals.

In the shouting about violent video games, it’s easy to forget that when you’re playing the game, you’re not usually just the protagonist, you’re the hero. In Doom, you’re a space marine whose job is to keep a demonic horde on Mars from attacking Earth after the rest of his regiment is killed by those demons. You’re saving your own planet, and all of mankind. That’s pretty heady stuff, no matter who you are.

As it happens, a new study reveals what many of us already know: people play video games to experiment with different roles. More specifically, to try on an idealized personality and see how it fits:

“A game can be more fun when you get the chance to act and be like your ideal self,” says Dr. Andy Przybylski, a research fellow at the University of Essex who led the study. “The attraction to playing video games and what makes them fun is that it gives people the chance to think about a role they would ideally like to take and then get a chance to play that role.”

Why do you play video games? Does the ability to play your “ideal self” appeal? Do you think Carmack is right about violent games’ influence? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Norway’s backlash against video games begins

Norwegian stores have pulled several video games, including Modern Warfare, from store shelves following Anders Breivik’s killing spree.

Remember how I said last week that video games didn’t lead Andres Breivik to kill dozens of his fellow Norwegians? Even Breivik himself already seemed to have terrorism firmly in mind by the time he described Modern Warfare 2 as “probably the best military simulator out there.”

Nevertheless, some Norwegian stores, including Coop Norden and Platekompaniet, have suspended sales of Modern Warfare and other violent video games, such as Homefront, the remainder of the Call of Duty series, Sniper: Ghost Warrior, and Counter-Strike: Source. Coop pulled World of Warcraft while Platekompaniet is still carrying it. In all, 51 games are off the shelves.

It’s unclear why the decision to stop selling some of the top-grossing video games was made. Are they concerned that Breivik’s manifesto — which encourages playing MW2 and WoW — will inspire copycats? Or are they worried about looking insensitive by continuing to sell such games while Norway is grieving?

Coop representatives explained:

In light of Friday’s horrific events, and of respect for those affected, we have chosen to remove simple items from our range … Coop believes that terrorism has been guided by motives other than computer game universes and Coop therefore sees no direct [connection] between them.

Not much of an explanation, eh?

Unfortunately, this decision has the side effect of separating people from a powerful way of processing fear, anxiety, and shock. And Norway is currently a country full of people attempting to process fear, anxiety, and shock. Sure, some of them will find other outlets — but to deny this one seems unreasonable, particularly if nobody truly believes games were to blame for Breivik’s actions.

It also winds up punishing video-game companies for an act of terrorism they had absolutely nothing to do with. Stores usually have the option whether to carry a certain product, so no laws are being broken, as far as I know. But I wonder what the ultimate effect, if any, of this sales decision will be.

What do you think? Should retailers stop selling such games when they’re associated with an act of terrorism? Why or why not?

Oslo: Modern Warfare didn’t lead Breivik to shoot

Alleged Oslo gunman Anders Behring Breivik.

People read newspapers if for no other reason than to understand human behavior. We read for the crimes, the celebrity shenanigans, the “fluff” pieces. When a massive tragedy happens, we want to know why it happened — and who was behind it.

That’s one reason reporters work so hard to find out details about someone like Anders Behring Breivik, who allegedly bombed downtown Oslo and then shot dozens of people, mostly children, on nearby Utoya Island July 22. Before the attack, Breivik penned a lengthy manifesto describing his goals and how he planned to get there. Within it are plenty of juicy details about his life, his tastes, and his philosophies.

A handful of articles this morning focus on Breivik’s use of video games, including one from Kotaku:

“I just bought Modern Warfare 2, the game. It is probably the best military simulator out there and it’s one of the hottest games this year. … I see MW2 more as a part of my training-simulation than anything else. I’ve still learned to love it though and especially the multiplayer part is amazing. You can more or less completely simulate actual operations.”

No doubt, some will see his statement as proof that violent video games are no good. That they inspire murderous rampages. People will see what they want to see in such statements — but that doesn’t make it true.

By the time Breivik got around to buying and playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, he was already pretty far along in his planning process. He was thinking in terms of wanting a “training-simulation.” Playing the game didn’t make him want to go on a shooting spree; wanting to go on a shooting spree made him want to play the game.

This is what people mean when they say correlation is not causation. You have someone who killed nearly 80 people in the biggest mass shooting in history. And you have someone who was fond of a military-style shooter game set in future versions of Afghanistan, Russia, and Rio de Janeiro, among others. That’s a correlation. But in Breivik’s own words, the plot came first; the game came later.

Perhaps of more concern is his use of World of Warcraft to separate himself from society:

Breivik says he spent three years writing the manifesto. In the first year, he played World of Warcraft “hardcore”, living “very ascetic” and in isolation. “I feel that this period was needed in order to completely detach myself from ‘the game,’ my ‘former shallow consumerist lifestyle’ in order to ensure full focus on the matters at hand.”

Many WoW players do wind up disassociated from day-to-day life if they spend the bulk of their time gaming. This is a hazard, and one worthy of attention. It’s worth noting that Breivik did this deliberately; whether other WoW players do probably varies from person to person.

Nevertheless, it’s likely that anti-violent-game pundits will use this opportunity to rail against the dangers of such games, particularly for young people. And indeed, some already are. Not 72 hours after the massacre, “the Australian Christian Lobby [is calling] for games to be banned if the ‘violence is excessive or gratuitous.’”

Australia’s Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, has reviewed existing research on violent video games. He saw Breivik’s mental state as a much more likely culprit for the shootings than the video games he favored:

I think it really points to, of course, a person who — clearly there is something wrong with this person to sort of cause such devastation in Norway. But I’m not sure that the argument goes that as a result of watching a game you turn into that type of person. I think there is something clearly intrinsically wrong with him.

It’s probably also worth noting that many gamers don’t believe that playing shooters appreciably improves their marksmanship. In addition to playing MW2, Breivik also joined a shooting club, though it’s unclear how much in-the-field target practice he’d undergone in addition to his gaming. I find it unlikely that the game alone would help him learn to wield a gun.

Could the game have inspired Breivik’s rampage — and could it have helped him pull it off? What do you think?