<p>You are using a few data points to make a generalization. Even then you’re assuming that correlation = causation. </p>
<p>Fwiw, most good hockey players start playing by the age of 3/4/5. Do you really think that at that age, they are attracted to the sport because of some kind of aggression? </p>
<p>The sport that he played had nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with this murder. The sport did not teach him to be violent. The sport did not enhance his violence. You know what did? The fact that he was an abusive waste of skin. </p>
<p>What you’re saying is, quite frankly, an insult to athletes everywhere. And it almost feels like a justification of what he did. I do not believe you intend it that way, but when you shift blame away from HIM to any external factors, you are shifting blame and that goes into justification. Violence outside the rink is not tolerated in hockey or any other sports by the vast majority of athletes. You will always have outliers like this waste, the lacrosse player, and Vick- but they are NOT violent because of their sports.</p>