Father Shot By Son For Banning Him from Video Games Applauds the President’s Call for CDC Research

The Ohio father who survived his son attempting to murder him after he took away his video games is applauding President Barack Obama's call for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to conduct research on the effects of violent video games on America's youth (as it relates to gun violence). Speaking to local news station Fox 8, Mark Petric of Wellington, Ohio said that he was happy that the President called for research and hoped that Congress would greenlight the $10 million in funding so the CDC could get to work.

"I commend the president for doing this," Petric said.

Back in 2007 his then 16-year-old son Daniel stole a gun from his father's lockbox and attempted to kill him and his wife after his father took his video game system away and banned him from playing Halo 3. While Mark Petric sustained a head injury, his wife Sue Petric died. His son was found guilty in September of 2009 and has been serving a life sentence with a possibility of parole after 23 years.

"He got involved in the violent graphic video games and became addicted to them and was playing as much as 18 hours a day," Petric told Fox 8.

Petric, a pastor, believes that his son was desensitized by violent video games and he thinks that an official will confirm what he already knows.

"The violence in these games and in the media has an effect on our kids. They are going to study this and they are going to see it is true," Petric said.

Petric also told Fox 8 that he would like to see the most violent video games banned in the United States.

Source: Fox 8

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. NyuRena says:

    The kid was obviously not right in the head and a religious upbringing might be the cause..

    Let's investigate that. =)

  2. mthiel says:

    I am surprised the Connecticut shooting has generated anti-video game talk from the government than the Daniel Petric shooting.

    Adam Lanza did play Call of Duty, but I have not seen anything that links the game to the shooting.

    Daniel Petric shot his parents *because* they took Halo 3 away from him. You can make an argument that "because his parents were responsible by taking the game away, he shot them both. That is why violent games should be banned".

    (No, I do not believe violent games should be banned)

  3. black manta says:

    I was kind of afraid of this, that by commissioning this study that it would send the wrong message to people like Mr. Petric; thinking that this study will be an official indictment of video games and thus confirming his prejudices.  All this study is is a bone thrown to those who still don't "get" video games.  Usually commissioning a study in Washington is code-speak for "We'll pretty much guarantee nothing will come of this."  So Mr. Petric should be prepared to be disappointed in the results when they're published should the study go ahead.

    I'm very sorry for what happened to Mr. Petric.  It was tragic and senseless.  But he needs to understand the video games did NOT make his son want to shoot him.  There were surely much larger factors that contributed to it.

  4. Reminator says:

    Nawwwwww, that can't be it.  Video games gave him the crazies.  People can't possibly grow up becoming crazy.  That's just crazy!

  5. DorkmasterFlek says:

    Right, because it couldn't possibly be that your son was a nutcase who would straight up fucking murder people for taking away his toys.  No, that couldn't possibly be it…

  6. Longjocks says:

    Good. Conduct proper studies and see what we come up with. In the likely event there are no links to violence particular to video games then that's something else we can be armed with.

    If a genuine study were to find a link, then good, we can better ourselves for it knowing the truth through evidence.

  7. ChuckLez says:

    I remember seeing a longer than normal interview with him on Fox 8 (Cleveland represent 🙂 ), and remember him saying that it took ALOT for him to forgive his son for what he did.  Daniel took alot away from him, but in the end was able to forgive.  I was about to finish the thought of "wow, you are a bigger person than I" before I heard "Video games are the issue"…..and shook my head.  Wow, you didn't forgive anything, you just transferred anger.  

    Hearing him rant on video games, he has this notion set as a belief, and he will go to his grave with this belief.  

  8. Mrxknown_JG says:

    I agree as someone who grew up with anger issues that stem from what I faced in school, not giving anyone the opportunity to decompress from those situations removes any way for them to release those feelings safely. That anger, stress, and anxiety builds up.

    Though, the kid was clearly too far gone if he only relied on video games for stress relief. When I was young, I had toys, bike riding, TV, and playtime with neighborhood kids. I didn't play 18 hours a day on video games.

    And when I tried to do a marathon recently for Extra Life, I got a severe headache and a bit nausea about hour 10.

    People need to know their limits and be able to express them without getting physical.

  9. Hevach says:

    Addiction probably played a part, and the judge certainly felt so, but from what I remember of the case when it was in the news, the basis of the insanity defense was that there'd been a history of violence in the family, he was exposed to and involved in violence at school and on the street, and video games had been his one escape from that. They weren't just his drug, they were his safe haven, and his family was literally telling him to leave that safe haven and return to one of the places he'd been involved in real violence.

    Which comes back to what the Grand Theft Childhood author has pointed out with most studies. When you control for exposure to violence outside of video games, the link disappears, and the results end up looking like what we've known for centuries: That children who are hurt by their parents in turn hurt others, that children who are hurt by others in turn lash out, that violence – real violence – begets violence.

  10. Imautobot says:

    Well, if you take crack away from a crack-head the odds are they'll get violent with you.  Anything that gives a person pleasure will give them a dopamine high, so taking away that source of pleasure is likely to be met with hostility.  That doesn't mean the video games made him violent, it means he was an addict.  

    Different addictions need to be treated differently.  For example, smokers usually move to patches or gum to come off their addiction.  Methadone is used to treat addictions to opiates like heroine.  Obviously there are addictions you can quit cold turkey like alcohol, though I've never known an alcoholic that just up and quit.  There are also addictions to things that you cannot just quit consuming, like food.  

    So, there are different ways to manage addiction, and yanking the addiction out from under an addict is one means that is most likely to result in anger, resentment, and possibly violence.  The father probably should have taken his son to a shrink, and set defined time boundaries for gaming, as well as mutual time spent with the kid in the real world.

    Again, this sounds like a situation of naive or lax parenting.

Comments are closed.