Normally, your views are right on the money. But you are pretty far off on this one. I fear you may be falling for two of the worst media illusions: 1) that somehow the evils of humankind are different today than they have been since the beginning of time, and 2) that things are more violent now than they were “in the good old days.” It’s a classic case of perception distorting reality.

For starters, even the most casual review of statistics shows that the earth is now far less violent on average than at any time in recorded history. Remember that the the plague, crusades, slavery, civil war, WWI, WWII, and the deadliest U.S. schoolyard killing (45 people in 1927) all happened before video games, violent movies, and most importantly, the 24 hour news cycle even existed.

The horror that happened in CT is beyond comprehension. I spent Friday crying and holding my kindergartener as tight as I could. But let’s not forget that thousands of children die every day around the world in equally horrible circumstances. Because this particular evil is so concentrated, so politically polarizing, and then diluted over the media 24/7, it somehow seems more “real” to us. But, is it any more real than the hundreds of children killed in Pakistan by U.S. drone strikes? Are their deaths somehow less horrible or “real”? Are the thousands upon thousands of children murdered and militarized in various civil wars in Africa somehow less important? Or do they simply make a less salacious news story for us to consume because it’s “over there”? And what about the hundreds of babies and small children killed every year right in the U.S. from neglect and abuse?

Please let me pause to be clear—in no way do I intend to diminish the horrific tragedy that unfolded on Friday. I just want to put it into context and argue that the death of ANY child is equally horrible.

Video games, music, and media are a mirror of the human heart, not a motivator. I’m not religious, but I’d be willing to bet Cain never played a single round of Call of Duty before whacking Abel over the head. You could take away every piece of electronic entertainment in the entire country, and guess what: murders, rape, suicide, and every other societal malady would still be in full swing. A quick search for countries that are statistically suffering from far more internal violence than the United States brings up places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria; places where nobody is playing any sort of video game or watching a 24-hour news station.

In closing, I invite you to turn off your television and internet for a week, and tell us after that if things seem quite as bad. Be very, very careful about how much you let the 24/7 cycle of bad news warp your perspective. And be even more careful about forgetting that, despite the tragic, inhuman atrocity that happened on Friday, there was exactly one evil person involved, and dozens if not hundreds of amazing, wonderful, angelic human beings who, when put to the ultimate test, did what was right. That fact gives me hope, and that fact lets me believe that the world, with or without video games or tv, is still a wonderful place worth fighting for.

EDITOR NOTE–Ryan, well said and we are in agreement. The senseless death of a child anywhere is still senseless.

TSA coming to a school near you!

I believe there is not one, single answer or solution to this issue.

We in the United States are now experiencing what other countries have had to endure for decades. The violent, senseless death of innocent men, women and children.
Wether by an individual, terrorist group or government. What I also fear, is that ultimately, we may be powerless to stop it.

I think it is silly to blame violent games or even a violent society. Kids without mental illness, or those without a propensity toward such problems, play the games without the slightest problem. It is those with underlying problems who perhaps are inappropriately impacted by the games. Does every kid in a house that has a lighter set the house on fire? No. But some do. Does every kid in a house with a gun act out inappropriately? Of course not. But some do. Unfortunately it is far more complicated than blaming television or movies or video games, or even bad parenting. I have no answers. I am a supporter of the ownership of guns, but I think maybe we do need bans on these types of assault weapons that fire rapidly and can kill so many in so short a time. Who realy needs an AK47 to defend their home?

EDITOR NOTE– Two Cents, the lighter on the table or the gun in a drawer are as harmless as the CD of the violent “MATURE” rated shooting game. When the game is played and it becomes part of the lives of children, disturbed teens, or adults is when it is bad. If the lighter is used to play with fire or the gun is used in a reckless manner to shoot street signs those objects become harmful.

I second what eric049 said. Most “comment boards” are painful and discouraging to read, if the topic is at all controversial, but the opinions here are thougtful and sincere. (Most comment boards offer ample evidence that our level of civility has deteriorated over a generation or two. I worry that we’ve lost our way.)

I cried on Friday, for the first time in years. I have a granddaughter that will be 6 next month – that baby is truly the light of my life! The notion that a human being could aim a rifle at innocent little children and start pulling the trigger – that is far beyond horrifying! Jesus said it well – it would be better to tie a millstone around the perp’s neck, and throw him in deep water.

I own several guns. I keep them well-secured. If I thought that giving up my guns would prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again, I’d surrender them in a heartbeat! But the reality is, having the law-abiding citizens turn in their guns would have negligible impact on criminal use of firearms… and it might have the opposite effect.

If I thought that outlawing violent video games or movies would prevent such a tragedy, I’d be on board! But again… the vast majority of people are able to process fantasy and reality, and differentiate between the two.

How do we prevent deeply-disturbed individuals from harming innocents? I don’t think we know. If we did, we wouldn’t be discussing it, we’d be doing it.

My heart is sick. I hope we’re not damaged beyond repair. God, PLEASE bless America!

I have reached the saturation point with the media scraming for more gun control. I would offer that we need more control of people with mental issues.

I am old encough to remember when President Reagan in his efforts to cut the federal budget closed down a large number of mental institutions and simply turned these people out on the streets. I would also submit that when this happened it created an up-tick in the shootings we see today.

The assanation of President Kennedy created a tipping point for the end of guns sent via mail order. You could get a gun for as little as $10 and a coupon from a comic book, Sport Afield, or other magazine advertisement.

President Reagan was the victim of a mentally unstable person who obtained a gun.

I would submit it is not the guns causing the problems but the closure of mental facilities and lack of options for dealing with mentally unstable people causing all manner of random killings with guns. I can think of not instance that the assaults on school kids, political figures and most other mass killings with guns weren’t well thought out but the people with mental issues. We need to rethink putting these folks in a safe environment where they can be monitored and live in a safe secure environment.

I would also submit for your consideration just how many gun related killings like what we have seen happened prior to 1986 and the closure of mental hospitals.

Evil can’t always be explained. Which is part of the problem in these cases. People naturally try to find the source of the problem to fix it. No matter what you do an evil person will find a way to hurt people.

The problem with mental health is the subjective nature of the diagnosis. Maybe there is a way around it, but I don’t know. We see this in courts all the time. One doctor says they are competent, the defense can then pay another doctor to say the opposite. Which one is right?

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/products/srm-arms-1216-semi-auto-shotgun/
clearly we need this for duck hunting. Made in Idaho to.

Got to agree with erico49. I’ve read it a number of times and I don’t see hunting there. Not even implied. Lets see, it does say Militia, and Security of a Free State, the right to hear Arms shall not be infringed. Nope, no hunting there. So lets go back to the day when this was written. The Military carried Flintlocks. The general public carried… Flintlocks. Fastforward a hundred years, the Military carried repeating rifles and the public carried…. repeating rifles. Fast forward a hundred years, the Military carries fully automatic rifles as their basic defense. the general public not so much. Limited to semi-auto unless you are willing to pay and go through a lot of red tape. Smells of infringement to me. Some states have limited to 3 rounds maximum carry. Stinks of Infringment to me. Gun control is not the answer. Think about it. What if every some brainless schmuck gets stoned out of his head and runs over 6 people. State say’s, you gotta blow into a breathilizer from this point forward before your car will start. But not just the schmuck. Everybody has to have this installed and follow the process. Does that sound like a viable solution.