After the Philippine School Shootings, Are We Blaming Video Games Again?

Tragedy struck in the Philippines, with two devastating school shootings occurring in a span of less than two months. In June 2026, a shooting at a school in Tacloban resulted in the loss of three young lives, and around 20 others were injured in the incident. The community was still reeling from this horrific event when another shooting took place at the Ateneo de Zamboanga University high school campus. This time, one student was killed, and the suspected shooter, who was also a student, lost their life during the incident. These senseless acts of violence have left many in shock and raised concerns about the safety and well-being of students in the country.

School shootings are still rare in the Philippines, which makes seeing two deadly incidents happen within two months even more disturbing.

It’s really sad when kids die, and it’s natural to feel angry too. But what’s frustrating is that people are asking the wrong questions when they’re trying to figure out what happened.

Following a shooting incident in Tacloban, the Philippine authorities decided to temporarily block a violent sandbox game called GoreBox. They wanted to investigate if the game or its online communities had any influence on the suspects. It was found that one of the suspects was a regular player of this game. The authorities are now looking into the possible effects of such games on the behavior of their players.

I’m completely fine with looking into that. If a kid who did something terrible spent a lot of time playing a certain game or talking to people in a specific online group, then sure, let’s check it out.

But please look at everything else too.

If we end up having the same old debate about how violent video games cause kids to be violent, we’ll be stuck in a conversation that’s been going on for years. The problem is, we might waste our time focusing on the simplest explanation, rather than looking at the really important factors. We need to dig deeper and consider all the possible reasons, not just the easy ones.

We’ve Had This Conversation Before

In 2012, a terrible shooting happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the US. After that, a well-known gaming commentator, John Bain, also called TotalBiscuit, made a video. The video was named Tragedy and Video Game Violence. He wanted to talk about what happened and how it related to violence in video games.

I remember his argument because he wasn’t simply defending video games. A large part of his frustration was directed at how quickly the media looked for something familiar to blame after something incomprehensibly horrible happened.

The conversation took an interesting turn when Call of Duty was brought up. Someone mentioned Dynasty Warriors, calling it a shockingly violent game that could supposedly inspire violent thoughts – which is pretty amusing if you’ve actually played the game. Then, things got even more bizarre when Mass Effect was dragged into the discussion, simply because the shooter’s brother had liked the game’s Facebook page. It’s amazing how quickly things can escalate, isn’t it? The connection between these games and real-life violence is still a topic of debate, with some people claiming that violent games can desensitize players to violence, while others argue that there’s no clear link between the two. Either way, it’s clear that the media loves to sensationalize the issue, often relying on exaggerated or misleading descriptions of the games themselves.

TotalBiscuit made a good point – people were creating stories based on whatever info they had, but they were ignoring the really tough questions. Like, what was going on with the person who did it? How did they get their hands on guns? Were there mistakes that could have been fixed to prevent it? And, most importantly, why were we wasting so much time making the perpetrator famous instead of talking about the victims? We should be focusing on the people who lost their lives, not the person who took them. It’s like, we’re so caught up in trying to understand the killer’s motives and backstory that we’re forgetting about the real heroes – the ones who were hurt or killed. We need to shift our attention to them and their families, and try to learn from what happened so we can prevent it in the future.

It’s been fourteen years, but I’m still seeing a conversation that feels all too familiar happening right now in the Philippines.

Following the incident in Tacloban, the authorities decided to temporarily block access to GoreBox as they looked into its potential impact. However, the reports about the shooting also raised several other concerns, including bullying, online activities, school security measures, and the disturbing fact that these children were able to obtain real guns.

It’s been reported that one of the guns was actually given to the owner by the police. The other gun was registered to a company that provides security services.

Then another school shooting happened in Zamboanga, and authorities again started examining the student’s online activity. At the same time, investigators were asking how he obtained the firearms he brought to school, including one reportedly registered to his father.

Maybe all of these things matter. Maybe some matter more than others. That’s what an investigation is supposed to determine.

What’s troubling is that we’re already considering one option as the solution before we’ve even confirmed it.

Following his brave action of blocking the attackers from his classmates, Tacloban declares school shooting victim Chris Fabian as ‘Young Hero’.

Do Violent Video Games Cause Violence?

Here’s where I need to be careful, because I’m a video game reviewer.

It would be incredibly convenient for me to say that video games don’t affect people at all. They’re harmless entertainment. End of discussion.

I don’t believe that.

I’ve written entire articles about how Dead Space made me think about burnout and learning to live instead of simply surviving. Ghost of Tsushima made me think about sacrifice and the responsibilities we accept for the people who depend on us. Pragmata made me cry and think about the kind of uncle I want to be for my niece.

Of course video games affect us.

Stories affect us. Music affects us. Movies affect us. Books affect us. People have been using stories to influence how other people think for thousands of years.

But saying that the media can influence us is very different from saying that playing a violent video game causes someone to commit real-world violence.

And that distinction matters.

The American Psychological Association’s position on violent video games is more nuanced than either side of this argument sometimes makes it sound.

Research reviewed by the APA found a small association between violent video game use and aggressive outcomes such as yelling and pushing. That’s worth discussing, particularly when we’re talking about children.

But the APA also explicitly states that there is insufficient scientific evidence to establish a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior such as mass shootings.

Aggression and mass murder are not interchangeable outcomes.

That’s the part we cannot casually leap over.

If a child who commits violence happens to play violent games, that fact may be worth investigating. It does not automatically tell us why that child committed violence.

TotalBiscuit made a similar point in 2012 when discussing correlations between entertainment and violence. He even warned gamers against making the same mistake in reverse. If crime rates happened to decline while violent games became more popular, that didn’t prove video games were reducing crime either.

Correlation isn’t causation just because the correlation happens to support the side we like.

Maybe There Isn’t One Thing to Blame

This is likely the most annoying aspect of the entire conversation.

We want there to be one thing.

One game. One website. One bad influence. One irresponsible parent. One bully. One mental health problem. One gun. Find the thing, remove the thing and hopefully this never happens again.

Unfortunately, people don’t work that way.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looks at youth violence in a different way. They think it’s not just one thing that causes it, but lots of things that can put a young person at risk. These risks can be inside the person, in their family and friends, at school, in their community, or even in the whole world around them.

Some young people who commit violence have histories of victimization. Emotional distress, exposure to violence at home, poor supervision, rejection by peers, association with delinquent peers, problems at school and substance use can all contribute to risk.

Please notice that I’m saying risk.

Being bullied doesn’t turn you into a school shooter. Having family problems doesn’t turn you into a school shooter. Struggling emotionally doesn’t make somebody dangerous.

Most people who go through tough times will never do something as terrible as a school shooting.

But if we’re trying to understand why violence happens, these are the kinds of circumstances researchers actually look at.

There are protective factors on the other side too. Supportive adults matter. Family relationships matter. Feeling connected to school matters. Appropriate supervision matters.

The CDC’s work on school connectedness even points toward something painfully ordinary: young people benefit from feeling that the adults and other students around them actually care about them and their well-being.

You can’t exactly solve that by uninstalling GoreBox.

Look at What We Already Know About the Philippine Cases

Go back to Tacloban for a moment.

The two suspects, aged 14 and 15, were at the center of a disturbing incident. It’s been reported that bullying was a factor being looked into, as part of the events leading up to the attack. What’s really alarming is that these kids had access to real guns, including one that was actually issued to the police. Somehow, they were able to bring these weapons into their school. One of the suspects was known to play a game called GoreBox, and now investigators are taking a closer look at online communities and the possible influence of this game on the suspects’ actions.

There are already several questions in that paragraph alone.

How did minors get the guns? How were they stored? How did the children get them into school? What exactly happened with the alleged bullying? Did adults know about it? Were there warning signs? What were they doing online? What role, if any, did GoreBox actually play?

I don’t know the answers.

That’s precisely why I don’t want us deciding which answer we like before the people investigating the case have finished their work.

In Zamboanga, a similar situation is unfolding. The authorities are not only examining the shooter’s online activities, but they are also trying to figure out how he got his hands on the guns. According to reports, at least one of the firearms was actually registered to his father, which raises even more questions about how he obtained them.

That’s not what I’m getting at, I’m not saying the gun itself “made” someone do the shooting. A gun locked away in a safe isn’t going to magically take control of someone’s mind and tell them to go out and commit a crime.

When we talk about a kid doing something as terrible as a shooting, we should think about how they got their hands on the thing that made it possible. It’s a pretty important question to ask.

And No, Video Games Aren’t Above Criticism

Let me get one thing straight, I’m not here to bash video games or tell people to stop playing them. Games should absolutely be criticized.

If children are accessing games intended for adults, parents should know about it. Age ratings exist for a reason. Parents should have some idea what their children are doing online, although I also recognize how ridiculously difficult that has become when every kid has access to an entire planet’s worth of information through a phone.

I’m particularly interested in the communities surrounding games.

Playing a violent video game and participating in an online community that glorifies real violence are two different things. If investigators discover communities where vulnerable teenagers reinforce each other’s anger, celebrate real-world violence, share violent material, or encourage destructive behavior, then yes, we should be talking about those spaces.

That’s not censorship. That’s something worth investigating. And again, I can’t have it both ways.

I can’t write thousands of words about how games helped me think about grief, responsibility, burnout, family and sacrifice and then suddenly insist games are incapable of influencing anyone because the conversation has become uncomfortable.

They influence us.

But what’s really important to consider is the impact they have on us, and how much of an influence they actually exert. We also need to think about who’s most likely to be affected by certain things, and whether those effects can lead to serious, real-life violence. These are all separate issues that we should be looking at.

Those questions deserve actual evidence.

We Really Like Easy Villains

Back in 2012, TotalBiscuit made a comment that still resonates today, and it’s definitely worth taking a moment to recall.

Video games are just the latest thing to worry people. We’ve been here before with other types of entertainment.

Rock music had its turn. Comic books had theirs. Violent movies have been blamed. Books have been blamed. Every generation seems to discover some new thing young people enjoy and wonder whether it’s corrupting them.

I don’t even think everyone doing this is being malicious.

Children died.

It’s only natural that parents, teachers, and the community at large are frightened and concerned about the safety of their schools. Everyone wants reassurance that their children are protected and secure while they’re at school. When a terrible incident occurs, people demand explanations and want to know what happened and why. Government officials are under pressure to provide answers and solutions, and it’s understandable that people are desperate for clarity and reassurance in the face of such tragedy.

A violent video game is real – you can actually see it and watch videos of it. For instance, you can see someone’s character shooting another character, and right away, you can understand why a worried parent might look at it and think, “This is crazy, my kid is playing this?” It’s something that you can touch and feel, not just some idea or concept. When you see the footage, it’s clear why some parents might be scared about their kids playing these kinds of games.

I get it.

But the easiest explanation isn’t necessarily the right one.

Bullying is harder to fix.

Social isolation is harder to fix.

It’s tough to ensure that people who own guns really keep them safe.

Creating schools where students trust adults enough to tell them something is wrong is harder.

It’s tough to know what kids are up to when they’re hanging out in online communities.

Getting parents, teachers, government agencies, technology companies and children themselves to work together is definitely harder.

So, if we really want to prevent problems, we should focus on the places where it actually makes a difference. That’s where we need to put our attention and effort, because that’s where we can make a real impact.

Maybe We’re Asking the Wrong Question

I’m not suggesting that anyone should halt their examination of video games.

Let’s take a closer look at the things these kids were into. What kind of games did they play? What videos did they watch? Which online communities did they join? What were they talking about? If the people investigating this find any real proof that a particular game, community, website, or some other type of media actually played a role in what happened, then I want to know about it too.

I just don’t think “What video game did they play?” is the question we should be building everything around.

I want to know how a child reached the point where shooting classmates became something they were willing to do. I want to know how they obtained guns and whether anyone noticed warning signs beforehand. I want to know what was happening at home, at school and online. I want to know whether they had adults they trusted, whether someone could have intervened, and what could have been done differently.

What can we really do to make a difference before another kid ends up in a similar situation?

Those questions are messy. They’re probably going to give us several answers instead of one, and none of those answers will give us a magic switch that prevents every act of violence.

But children are dead.

We owe them more than finding something convenient to blame.

Towards the end of his discussion on Tragedy and Video Game Violence, TotalBiscuit took a different approach. Instead of encouraging gamers to lash out at those who blamed their hobby, he urged them to be understanding and show sympathy. He believed that people were scared and when they’re frightened, they often react impulsively, targeting things they don’t fully comprehend.

TotalBiscuit’s message was one of empathy and rationality, asking his audience to consider the fears and concerns of others, rather than simply attacking them. By doing so, he hoped to promote a more constructive dialogue and help gamers better understand the perspectives of those who might not share their passion for gaming.

My perspective on that has changed over time, and I see it differently now than I would have in the past.

It’s heartbreaking to hear about the loss of young lives. The fact that this tragedy has occurred twice in our country in such a short span is devastating. What’s even more troubling is that in our attempt to make sense of this horrific event, we might get distracted by questions about the video games these children played, rather than exploring the deeper issues that led them to commit such a heinous act.

We need to look beyond the surface level and examine the circumstances that preceded their actions, the struggles they faced, and the factors that contributed to their descent into violence. By doing so, we can work towards preventing such tragedies from happening again in the future. The blame game won’t bring back the lives lost, but a thorough understanding of the underlying causes might help us find a way to stop this senseless violence.

If we’re serious about protecting children, we owe them more than an easy villain. We owe them the uncomfortable work of figuring out what actually went wrong and, more importantly, doing something about it.