22/09/2026
๐๐๐๐ | ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฏ๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง
When school violence happens, the search for an explanation begins almost immediately. Someone asks what the student watched, what they played, or what appeared on their screen. Soon, the controller becomes a suspect.
Video games are an easy target to blame.They are colorful, accessible, and, in some cases, filled with violence. So when a student commits a violent act, blaming the games they played can feel like an explanation neatly packaged in pixels.
But violence is rarely that simple.
The American Psychological Association has found a small, reliable association between violent video game use and aggressive outcomes such as yelling and pushing. However, it also states that there is insufficient scientific evidence to establish that violent video games cause violent behavior such as mass shootings. Violence, according to the APA, is a complex social problem involving multiple factors. That distinction matters.
Aggression is not automatically violence. Violence is not automatically a consequence of entertainment.
And playing a violent game does not provide a complete explanation for why someone chooses to hurt another person. Yet every time a school attack occurs, the game controller can become the convenient villain.
The Philippines has recently faced several deadly incidents in schools. After the September 18 shooting in Banga, South Cotabato, authorities examined the suspect's participation in an online true-crime community while also looking into other circumstances surrounding the attack. Earlier incidents in Tacloban and Zamboanga likewise prompted investigations into online content and social media. Investigation, not instant conclusion.
There is a difference between asking whether violent media can influence behavior and declaring that it caused a tragedy.
The first demands evidence. The second can end the investigation before the harder questions are even asked.
What about access to harmful online communities? What warning signs were missed? What circumstances surrounded the student? What happened before the violence? What systems were available for students who were struggling? What can schools and communities do to identify risks before they become tragedies? These questions are much less convenient than pointing at a screen.
A video game can contain violence without creating a violent person. Likewise, removing a game cannot automatically remove the conditions that may contribute to real-world violence.
The controller should not become a scapegoat simply because it is easier to blame than a complicated reality. School violence needs more than a convenient villain. It needs evidence, prevention, intervention, and the willingness to look beyond the screen.
โ๏ธ: Pau Carrao
