Boy's Accidental Patricide Blamed on Games

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Boy's Accidental Patricide Blamed on Games

image

A 4-year-old shot his father for allegedly not bringing home a PlayStation.

There is sophisticated analysis of the facts, and there's jumping to conclusions (preferably on a mat). According to Saudi news site Asharq Alawsat, a four and a half year old boy waited for his father to get home. He walked through the door without the desired videogame console, and the boy was apparently not very happy about it. When his father was undressing, the boy picked up a loaded handgun his father left on the bed and shot him in the head. Instead of calling for gun safety reforms, the tragic accident dredged up old arguments about violence in games and how it influences the young.

"Violence has been linked to videogames; numerous studies have shown that more and more children are playing the violent videogames, which leads to greater aggression," writes the Christian Post.

"In this case, the 4-year-old had likely seen shootings enacted in a videogame he played. When he shot his father, he did not realize he would actually cause him harm; he was merely copying what he had already seen. There have been other cases of kids acting out or harming someone else after playing a videogame."

The Christian Post doesn't cite these "other cases" but does find time to plug television pundit Dr. Phil. "If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don't go to jail, you don't get penalized in some way-you get extra points!" Dr. Phil writes. "It's absolutely not good."

I'm sure I don't need to point out to you how an accidental shooting - even if the child wanted a PlayStation - has no bearing on the content of videogames. The violence in games did not make the father negligent in teaching his son about gun safety.

Source: Christian Post

Permalink

Why would you let a 4-year-old child play games with such content in them anyway?

Yeah, the bigger issue heres are both letting a four-year-old play video games and, most importantly, leaving a fucking loaded gun within his reach.

Aeryn Seoung:
Why would you let a 4-year-old child play games with such content in them anyway?

Some people genuinely dont care.

Em yes people do come after you first the police and eventually the army. Then in other games you have a telepathic network of super guards that spawn like Tyranid/Ork hybrids and will chase you for not paying the fine. Also why was there a loaded gun which a 4 year could access.

The Christian Post...

Sums up the story already in name.

Kids a fucking nutcase, videogames did fuck all.

Wait, the quote source is called the "Christian Post"?


They give video-games too much credit: People can be horrible, selfish and stupid all by themselves.

Glademaster:
Em yes people do come after you first the police and eventually the army. Then in other games you have a telepathic network of super guards that spawn like Tyranid/Ork hybrids and will chase you for not paying the fine. Also why was there a loaded gun which a 4 year could access.

Daddy was carrying it when he got home and put it down while he was changing.

i blame the parent for leaving a LOADED gun within the kids reach

I"m having a hard time believing a four year old did this. I mean a four year old was upset that he didn't get a system and was able to wield a gun and successfully kill a person?
That is very strange. I have a half sister and she likes games but she can barely hold the controller and she's a year older than this kid and probably much bigger. You'd think he'd much prefer playing with toys and watching tv.

Okay, I think this family is more than a little fucked up. I mean, first of all, how would a 4 year old have access to a gun? Secondly, how would a four year old know how to aim and use a gun (I know it's not hard, but I had no idea what safety or even a trigger was when I was four)? Thirdly, what kind of family lets a four year old play violent games? Fourthly, why the fuck was the gun loaded? If it wasn't, why would the kid know how to reload a gun?

These are signs of irresponsible parents and they deserve to be sho...

Oh right.

Calumon: ...that was mean.

Dr. Phil, please read the article of what happened again.

You may be an expert but read the damned thing again, please. Don't make me hate you.

It's been said but bears repeating. The man left a loaded handgun within reach of his 4 year-old child. For such an incredibly irresponsible act he deserved to be shot. I call darwinism here.

TizzytheTormentor:

Kids a fucking nutcase, videogames did fuck all.

Well actually the kid almost certainly isn't a "nutcase", children don't usually properly understand death (especially the whole not coming back bit) until they're between 5 and 7 so this kid very likely had no idea Daddy would be dead permanently. He may well have copied video games too although it's not the games fault of course, it's the parents for leaving a loaded gun around.

I bet it turns out that he didn't even have any video games, and that he couldn't have gotten the idea from there. That's probably why he wanted a PlayStation so bad.

P.S. Thanks

I don't understand how video games are to blame here. The kid clearly didn't have the capability of playing video games. The father was supposedly shot because he DIDN'T bring home a video game console.

So the four year old knew how to use a gun? Not only that, but he shot his old man right in the head? I doubt he learned that from playing a game. I'm more concerned about the fact that the guy left a loaded gun for his kid to handle and that said kid managed to kill him in one seemingly well aimed shot.

Wait...he was mad at his dad for not brining home the game console. Does that mean that he didn't have a game console in the home to beign with? Isn't that something worth noting?

So violent game content makes the kid think it's ok to shoot people? Yet he doesn't have a Playstation... So, assuming there isn't another console in play how can he even have seen the content in the first place?

It's gotta be done.

image

Also allow me to parrot everyone else in saying how idiotic is is to leave a gun within reach of a four year old.

/facepalm

WHO LEAVES A GUN OUT ON THE FREAKING BED IF YOU GOT A FOUR YEAR OLD WALKING AROUND?!!?

WHOOOOO?????

oh god. . . .i just . . . cant. . .

OK, I've never heard about this "Christian Post" thing, but I'm gonna just assume it's about as close to being a mainstream news source as The 700 Club, and reports its stories from roughly the same viewpoint. But citing Dr. Phil as a credible source? I thought religious fundamentalists hated that guy.

Considering the kid was waiting for a console what video game was he playing without one?

Honestly, this is just retarded. If you leave something so inherently harmful around a small child, someone is going to get hurt.

right ....
it was all video games fault ...

had nothing to do with the dad leaving a load weapon in reach of a child, nor with, what sounds like a spoiled brat not getting his way

I know this is repeating what's already been said but this story raises a LOT of questions:

How the hell did a four year old get access to a handgun?

Why the hell was it loaded?

Why the hell wasn't the safety on? If it was, how the hell did he know how to take it off? I've played many, many video games and they rarely, if ever, show you doing that.

A loaded handgun is (fairly) weighty, particularly for a small child, so how was he able to accurately aim it at his dad? (According to the internet, a 9mm pistol weighs about a kilo when loaded. Go ask a four year old to pick up a big bag of sugar and they'll have difficulty holding it.)

Assuming video games are to blame (which I absolute refute the possibility of), why was he allowed to play them?

And finally, why the hell was it not drummed into him that guns are bad and can seriously injure, if not kill, someone?

If this story is indeed true, I blame the parents. Plonking your kid in front of a computer is NOT a substitute for proper parenting. QED.

This reminds me of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE-m2KOjSg

im more amazed by the comments so far. people arent making jokes or racist comments or trolling for kicks

Why the hell did he leave a freaking loaded gun where the kid could get to it? Sounds like crappy parenting, either that or the kids got issue's for shooting his father in the damn head like that.

Jesus Christ! Who leaves a loaded gun where their kid can use it?! And did it ever occur to you that this kid had issues? Did you ever think about that?!

The most concerning thing to me is having a bullet loaded in the chamber of his gun already. Now, I don't know what gun was used in the shooting, but I'm pretty sure a 4 year old can't chamber a round on most guns by himself.

Speaking as someone with a CCW, even when carrying, I would never have a round in the chamber unless it was a situation that called for it. Undressing does not call for it.

I'm calling somewhat shenanigans on this. I don't want to sound insensitive to the death of a man, but really this sounds a bit off to me. If he is truly dead, I'm sorry for his loss but to blame this on anything other than the man himself for his actions leading up to it is doing everyone else a disservice.

Gun left within reach of four-year-old kid. Not smart. I'm just glad it was the moron who left the gun there and not the kid who died.

I'm stating right now that this story is a fabrication to begin with.

Why OF COURSE videogames are to blame! He was obviously impersonating this:

How the kid got access to a loaded gun in the first place? Pssh! IRRELEVANT!

Let's break this down.

moron:
In this case, the 4-year-old had likely seen shootings enacted in a videogame he played. When he shot his father, he did not realize he would actually cause him harm; he was merely copying what he had already seen. There have been other cases of kids acting out or harming someone else after playing a videogame

-Oh, he had likely seen shootings enacted in a video game? So you're arguing against video games based on what the child had likely seen. So nothing new? Anti-video game crusaders spouting shit without any evidence.

-games don't make people violent. That's absurd. If people hated violence so much there would be no violent video games and violent movies. They wouldn't sell. People make and sell things that other people like. And we like violence. We might hate violence in real life, but we love fake violence on screen and in video games. There are some people who don't even like that though. My mother's one of them. She thinks Worms are too violent. But I digress.

-Violent video games are not for children. If your 4 year old child is playing Call of Duty it's your own damn fault. Don't blame video games, blame parents.

-People have always been violent. It's in our nature.
But look at the statistics once in a while. Violence is lower today than ever before. The only difference is that today the entire world is connected and we have sensationalist media who only talk about bad things happening in the world because good things are boring. What would your average citizen rather want to hear about, a man beaten to death with by a dildo wielding mob of junkies, or a child prodigy playing violin like a professional musician at the age of 4?
Someone started this whole "violent video games are ruining children" and stupid people without an ounce of critical thought are buying into it.

Another thing. Why the fuck did that guy keep a loaded gun in a place so easily accessible to a 4 year old?

That's just bad parenting. You keep hazardous chemicals, sharp objects, and loaded weapons away from children, especially entitled children inclined to shoot you. Sad thing is, the kid doesn't even know he's accountable, and doesn't even know how much of his life he just fucked up.

Herp Derp guys we have to use same logic people use to justify the link between violence and video games. Think about guys, the kid didn't get the Playstation and shot his father, so therefore everyone who does not receive a Playstation from their father will in turn shoot their father. Lack of Playstation lead to violent murders, you can tell because it happened.

But in all seriousness it really disturbs me that so many of the people that advocate video games are a major cause of violence use the generalization "Video games are in a opposite world where murder is good, so kids think that."

I think I'll wait for this story to appear in an actual news source, because there are too many oddities for me to believe it's real.

Firstly, a four year old able to accurately headshot someone? Guns are heavy, and firing one means a small explosion is going off on the gun in your hand(s), making it difficult for an untrained ADULT to hit someone in the TORSO. Let alone a deliberate freaking headshot by a four year old.

Secondly, even if video games are somehow magically at fault, the kid should not have been exposed to them. Games with pronounced amounts of even semi-realistic gunplay are at least rated TEEN (or equivalent rating in other countries). The most I'd maybe let a four year old see is little big planet. Games have a system in place designed to inform parents that maybe their kid shouldn't be playing Gun Game: Shoot All the Things until they are psychologically able to tell that this is not a good thing to do in real life. If this four year old had been exposed to large amounts of ANY violent media, then I could see this being a "monkey see monkey do" where the kid sees the gun, is upset at dad, and shoots. That is not the industries fault, that is the parent's fault for letting a four year old be exposed to copious amounts of violence. And, y'know, for leaving a freaking LOADED GUN around your kid.

Thirdly, I'm going to reiterate Smeagol150's point, why was a round chambered in this gun? For this to happen either this four year old knew how to turn off the safety and chamber a round (which a kid that age may not be able to do, I gather it requires a bit of effort even from an adult). That also means I'm pretty sure he'd been taught by more than video games, I've played a lot of shooters and I have no clue where a safety would be on a gun. So either the kid did this, or the gun was lying around with no safety and a round ready to fire. That makes it not an issue of video game violence, but an issue of total absence of gun safety in a home.

TL;DR, this doesn't add up, and even if it is true, I really doubt you can blame video games for it. Not that it will stop Fox News from trying once they hear about it.

Greg Tito:
Boy's Accidental Patricide Blamed on Games

Instead of calling for gun safety reforms, the tragic accident dredged up old arguments about violence in games and how it influences the young.

Permalink

It's not a problem with either. It is a problem with parenting. The gun didn't shoot itself and the games didn't make the kid do it. Blaming the gun is no different than the morons blaming the video games.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here