The Risk of Grand Theft Auto 6

As the video game Grand Theft Auto 6 nears its release date on November 19, 2026, the media is once again discussing if the series endangers children.

This debate has been going on since 1997 when the first instalment of the game series released; the arguments and debate largely has not changed.

The one difference between then and now is that now there is data from the previous debates over the last three decades.

The Argument

At its core, the argument is essentially this:

Exposure to uncivil acts in a virtual environment predisposes people, especially children, to committing these acts. A hypothetical example or process is then laid out that essentially boils down to:

Child plays video game 🡪 Exposed to simulated violent acts repeatedly 🡪 Violent acts are normalized 🡪 Child then does violent acts as they are perceived as normal.

The evidence provided to support this claim is usually in reference to mass shooter events and is correlative in nature.

‘Insert event’ occurs with ‘insert assailant’. Said assailant has played ‘insert violent video game’. Thus, violent video game ought to have been, at minimum, a contributing factor.

The evidence and arguments to reject this claim are generally as follows:

• The data is correlative, not causational.

• The data and premise are significantly flawed, there are too many confounding variables.

• There is evidence to suggest these games may have the opposite effect via providing an outlet in a simulated environment.

• The number of occurrences is too small relative to the total population.

• 
  

The 1999 Debate

On April 20, 1999 in Columbine, Colorado, U.S., the Columbine High School Massacre occurred. 16 fatalities and 23 injured occurred, the highest on record at the time.

Doom, Doom II, and Quake, popular shooting video games at the time, were considered relevant when looking at the radicalization profile of the shooters.

In 2002, the documentary Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore released. This became one of the most well-known analyses at the time in the public domain. Without giving a summary of the entire movie, there are two significant points it addresses in relation to video games in particular, although the movie has a much broader overall scope:

1. International statistics on other countries that play even more video games than the United States (especially Japan) have substantially lower crime rates. If video games were the primary cause then there would have to be an explanation for these other examples.

2. The documentary’s main thesis, stated in the title: With how many contributing factors that existed and how little evidence that is provided to support many of them, why not blame bowling for the Columbine Massacre?

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants

Years later, various events occurred which inform on this debate. One of the most significant being an U.S. supreme court ruling:

In 2011 the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association struck down a 2005 California law that banned the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision.

The main takeaway is that video games were ruled to be a form of creative expression, protected under the First Amendment, were effectively the same as books, movies, and music.

This ruling is important because in order to ban media it would need to be proved that a video game:

1. Poses a direct, actual, severe threat to national security or public safety.

2. There is a causal link proving this threat.

3. It must be done in the least restrictive way possible.

Scientific Studies

Long-term research has been done on video games and their potential link to violence. The conclusion has essentially been that there is insufficient evidence to conclude this at that previous studies that indicated there could be have been debunked.

One such study is: Violent Video Games and Real-World Violence: Rhetoric Versus Data published in 2014.

The American Psychological Association (APA) currently states that while gaming may cause short-term aggressive feelings like frustration, there is insufficient evidence to link violent video games to criminal violence or mass shootings.

The most comprehensive study we could find that appears to be treated as definitive current was: Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents’ aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report (2019).

It concludes that they found “a whole lot of nothing”.

Disaster Risk Reduction Analysis

Stepping back a bit, the initial assumption to ban certain violent video games might have been reasonable.

With disaster risk reduction, sometimes it can be prudent to apply the precautionary principle. The idea with the precautionary principle is that if one believes a significant risk to public safety exists, but is not certain as to its cause, one can take protective measures based on a theory or hunch before while it is investigated.

There are a few problems with applying it in this case now though:

1. It has been investigated, significantly so, to the point the precautionary principle no longer applies as a matter of reasonable practicality.

2. Other variables exist that have similar or less investigations done on their impact, these have not been banned. This calls into question the motivations and efficacy of the strategy.

3. Other risks exist with far greater negative consequences than mass shootings that do have causal links established with variables, and those things are not banned.

The last point is one of the most central to disaster risk management, it tends to work in thresholds. Once something passes a certain threshold of risk versus benefit, it tends to trigger a justification for certain levels of invasive risk controls.

Here are two examples of things that are higher risk that are not yet forced:

Vaccination for various life-threatening conditions versus restriction to refuse vaccination.

Chronic conditions tied to diet and lifestyle (heart disease, diabetes, etc.) versus restricted access to junk food.

The Reversal

There is one more study finding that further complicates the argument on banning particular video games: they may actually work to decrease acts of extreme violence.

Studies from the University of Saskatchewan, Virginia Tech, Texas Tech, and North Caroline State University have all shown that video games may actually have this opposite effect.

From a disaster risk perspective, if a variable that was previously thought to be a contributing factor is later found out to more likely be a risk control, the general conclusion is not to ban it.

It does appear that picking up a prostitute, going to a back alley, participating in the service, and then killing the prostitute for a refund in Grand Theft Auto may in fact reduce the likelihood an individual participates in this sort of behaviour in the real world.

The same appears to be true for robbing the military base of a tank or attack helicopter and then proceeding to mow down half the city.

Or killing a police officer so that one can escalate their wanted level sufficient so that the military shows up with the tank, so that one can then take the tank without needing to go to the military base, and then bringing the tank to a magical autobody shop which suddenly makes everyone forget they were looking for you.

Then, one can proceed to collect tanks and park them in their multi-million-dollar mansions, or start racing them across a beach.

It does appear that individuals do separate fantasy from reality, and that it maybe be the case that some individuals who feel the need to act out a particular fantasy may be better off doing so in a virtual world in the interest of public safety.

Vezina is the CEO of Prepared Canada Corp. and is the author of Continuity 101. He can be reached at info@prepared.ca.