And now, everyone wants to know why. And in the usual fashion of politicians, sociologists, and even ameatur philosophers, they have started pulling answers out of their asses.
Now, all of a sudden, game makers are receiving the backlash from angry parents and politicians who are convinced that bloody games such as Doom and Redneck Rampage are making kids kill. Hollywood and Television Networks have been accused of the same crime. The violent games and media have supposedly "de-sensitized" kids.
I'm sorry, but no. If someone sees a person murdered on television, does that mean that if they see one murdered in real life they're just gonna go "Oh, well that's happened before," and walk casually along, whistling a careless little tune? No. They're gonna be scared, disgusted, and vomiting on their shoes. And what IS "de-sensitized" anyway? Is this some type of flower child baby boomer hippie crap that was invented for just this purpose? Must be. And even if it's not, such a term should not be applied so losely. De-sensitation occurs not by watching random acts of violence on television. De-sensitation is what Hitler did to his SS (his special soldiers) so that they could kill millions of Jews without the blinking of an eye.
Another fact that shoots this concept out of the water is that murder rates are dropping, and are considerably lower than almost any time in recorded history. In fact, the time period during American History that hearalded the highest murder rate was in the mid 1800's, where outlaws in the wild west murdered anyone they pleased and criminals in the big cities killed at random. The thing that's so significant about this is that they didn't have TV's to "de-sensitize" them. Nor did they have violent video games to help them perfect that murdering shot. They just had a primal urge to kill.
So why do they commit these horrible crimes? If you want an answer to this question, you'll have to get your head out of the media and put it into the homes. That's where the answer is.
It is common knowledge that broken homes often breed disturbed or troubled children, as do abusive and alcoholic homes. But what about homes where the parents are absent a majority of the time?
Parents have got a moral responsibility to raise their child to the best of their abilities and to prepare them for the outside world. If that parent is at work, how can they teach their child right and wrong? How can they see the warning signs that tell them "Hey, this kid needs help!"? How can this be done from the office over the cell phone?
The answer is it can't. Parents have got to play a bigger role in guiding and disciplining their children. In a society where, even in the schools, the victims remain victims as the criminals roam free and without fear of repercussions we need parents to teach their kids that killing is a very bad thing. They also need to be present to catch the warning signs that everyone gives off when they're about to jump off the deep end.
Could Columbine have been prevented if the parents had caught their son and his friend making bombs in their two-car garage?
Although the circumstances leading up to the school massacres may be different, school and parental intervention could have prevented not some, not most, but ALL of the senseless killings. Availability of guns is only a problem when the kids aren't taught that they should be used for target practice on deer, not peers.
And that's how I see it.
~*Feisty Charli*~
May 27, 1999
