No.

If you were about to eat breakfast, head out to work, hop in the shower or catch a few more hours of sleep – you're welcome.

The (slightly) longer answer is that for a computer game – digitized fiction without any bearing on the real world – to push a person into actually harming another human being, said person would have to be plagued by so many other, more serious, deep-seated and unaddressed problems, the game would be at the bottom of a very extensive list... Picture this:

1) You hate (fill in the blank), which is plausible: life is often stressful and resentment can accumulate; 2) you regularly play (let's be unoriginal) Saints Row, venting your frustration by shooting random sprites just because you can; 3) you decide you've had enough of the individual in point 1 and you're going to do something (along Saints Row lines) about it.

Impediment one

If you just stop and think for a moment, you'll realize the basic premise is ridiculous. No matter how frustrating another person is, it's no excuse to harm or kill them... It's probably a great reason to change your attitude towards them or stop your interactions altogether, but physical harm is very much The Nuclear Option. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you've really got it in for this person and you ignore the concepts of morality or Proportionate Response...

Impediment two

Your family (parents, siblings, partner or spouse) would be affected by any action you undertake. From legal ramifications to societal stigma, anything you do – they'll have to deal with the fallout of... But, maybe, you're too hung up on the idea to stop yourself, hate your family as well, or simply don't have one. Fair enough: there's a lot of lonely humans out there...

Impediment three

Even if you are acting on your own, basic self-preservation dictates you'd realize how few people who undertake such affairs actually get away with them. From an overeager police force to private gun owners or simply Good People With Morals, doing something that flies in the face of accepted societal norms would stack the odds against you to a disproportionate degree making your chances of survival – or simply remaining at liberty – slim to none. But not everyone is lucky in life: maybe you have nothing left to lose...

Impediment four

In order for your undertaking to be successful, you would need a weapon of some sort – a knife, a firearm, whatever – and purchasing a weapon, while (sadly) not that difficult, is a bit of a wake-up call and comes with its own formalities, legalities and expenses. People who sell you the weapon might have questions; there might be background checks or, maybe, they'll pick up on the odd vibes coming off you. But why stop there? Let's say the acquisition goes off without a hitch with nobody the wiser...

Impediment five

You have to actually Go Through With It. And while harming a human being is not as difficult as one might expect, it is still worlds apart from doing it in a game. It's not just an LMB click, folks: it's a big, unsavory package with its own, immediate physical and mental ramifications...

So – to sum up: in order for a human being to make the leap from hating someone to doing them harm, they would need to 1) have no moral compass or possess, at best, a poor grasp of reality; 2) be a loner or a very well integrated sociopath; 3) have low self-worth or no interest in self-preservation; 4) be able to acquire a weapon; and 5) be capable of harming or killing someone and able to live with the consequences.

Now, do humans like that exist? Definitely. But their actions are a result of complex neglect in their upbringing and/or extensive dysfunction that takes decades to crystallize and is in place long before they decide which form of entertainment they prefer...

"Well," I pretend to hear you say to maintain narrative flow "If all these more basic, more serious issues are the real underlying cause, how come the response after most new instances of violence seldom fails to pick on computer games?" The answer is simple: it's just political expediency at play...

Say you're a ranger, there's a forest fire and your choices for how to prevent the next one are 1) uprooting and replanting the whole forest; 2) blaming a 400-kilogram grizzly; or 3) blaming a bunny rabbit...

Replanting is defeatist and would take decades of constant work. If you undertook it, you'd be admitting the way it was originally done was wrong and correcting it would take longer than you're probably gonna hold the job for.

Picking a fight with a bear is also unwise: not only will it not address the issue at the core of the problem, but you might get mauled in the process – and mauled is a tough look to sell, believe you me.

So – by process of elimination – bunny rabbit it is. It's little, so it won't put up much of a fight and, yeah, the issue won't get solved, but you'll be seen to be doing something and by the time the next forest fire happens it will hopefully be Somebody Else's Problem...

Substitute "politician" for ranger, "lobbying groups" for the bear and "computer game" for the rabbit and that's pretty much how the current system works.

Addressing parenting, education, mental health or societal values is too big a job for an elected official: it would take a lifetime devoted to a single cause to even budge how things work – never mind change 'em – and, let's be honest, even though they are meant to undertake these positions to serve the people who elect them, for most elected officials their position is Just A Job... Which is not to say politicians of conviction don't exist, but – judging by the shape the world's in – I'd say they are vastly outnumbered...

Picking a fight with a lobbying group (like the gun lobby) is financially unfeasible – and that's assuming the politician in question isn't on their payroll to begin with. Such groups have widespread backing and very deep coffers, after all, and as legal proceedings of any sort basically boil down to who can afford the better lawyers for longer, a single politician funded by individual donations isn't going to pose much of a threat to a multi-billion-dollar lobby.

So, yeah, it's little wonder computer games get the blame: it's always easier to pick on something that won't cause blowback or put up resistance than coming clean and saying "Hey: how we're doing things isn't working and will take real effort and a long time to fix."

Violence in computer games is widespread and appealing because it represents a taboo subject: it's not something you're supposed to be able to do in real life. And real world violence exists because, for centuries, it was mankind's preferred solution to problems and disputes and – Armani suits and poetry to the contrary – humanity is not so far distanced from its roots segments of it won't resort to an Oldie But Goodie in a hurry...

Correlating the two, however, is nothing but a cop-out that ignores the real causes of tragedy and displaces blame onto things that have little – if anything – to do with 'em.