Video games do not cause violence – but makers do need to think about it

There is no compelling evidence that games cause real-life bloodshed, but the industry must address its attitude to guns and conflict, or risk being drowned out by fearmongers

It was not a surprise to see Donald Trump and a cabal of other Republican politicians seeking to implicate video games in the US's latest mass shootings. The idea that young men can be driven to kill by Doom, Call of Duty or Fortnite is a seductive one: it's simple, it ties in with fears that older voters harbour about digital culture and screen time, and it conveniently draws attention away from more complex societal concerns such as poverty, neglect, easy access to deadly firearms and a violently confrontational political culture. There's just one problem: despite years of research and hundreds of studies, there is no compelling evidence that video game violence causes real-life bloodshed. It's a dead end.

Every time these claims are made, the industry seems unwilling to analyse or engage with the reasons why games are so often implicated in violent acts. The standard response is blanket outrage and denial - games don't cause real-world violence, they're "apolitical" fun, so we don't have to think about the issue, we don't have to consider how the shooters portray or utilise military violence. They're just entertainment.