IN a June Fair Point column on video game addiction, I wrote how people's views on that medium often stems from the wider general attacks on the video game industry.

In the June column I wrote: "Computer games have been attacked for violence and bad behaviour, and calls for them to banned have often been made."

The perfect example of this came at the weekend, in the latest horrific and tragic shooting in Florida, America.

In the Sunday night shooting three died including the suspected shooter. There have been several shootings in the US recently, but this one was a little different as it happened at an eSports video game tournament event.

Almost instantly reporters here and in the states were quick to label the suspected killer as an 'angry gamer', who was in a rage after losing a match. This happened before reports the possible shooter had taken part in the tournament were even confirmed.

To be clear, I'm not saying the fact this shooting happened at a gaming tournament shouldn't be included in reports of what happened. But what is wrong with this type of coverage is that the focus is all on the suspected shooter being a gamer.

When shootings happen in the US, in schools, churches, shopping malls, usually in the coverage I wouldn't expect a rush to give the shooter a label such as, for example, a book or film lover.

So why do I raise this point?

I admit I am concerned that this coverage gives gamers a bad name. It is an escapism medium enjoyed by millions everyday, including me. But the bigger issue is that this becomes part of the wider distraction from what the real focus should be on - stricter gun laws.

The reality is mass shootings – defined as an event where four or more people are killed – are an everyday event in the US. It has already happened more than 150 times this year.

The National Rifle Association has a president in their pocket and can use this type of coverage as part of their brainwashing to ensure there remains no will for US gun laws to change.

Of course the motives of a shooter, their mental health, beliefs and their interests, such as gaming, should be looked in the aftermath. But stopping them getting their hands on guns in the first-place should be the priority.