Here are a few thoughts of mine, organized or not.
- Desensitization of Americans, in particular, children
Did you know that because of the "bull's-eye-target" method of firearms instruction used by the military in Basic Training and the resulting hesitation on behalf of the soldier to shoot the enemy in WWII, video games were developed by the Department of Defense to desensitize the soldier, break down a natural mental barrier, and train soldiers that it is acceptable to shoot a human figure, and minimize the feelings of remorse after the situation?
There were too many soldiers who, in the field of combat, froze and could not pull the trigger on the enemy. After battles in the civil war, in picking up the rifles from the dead, it was found that 90 percent were loaded. This is striking because it took 95 percent of their time to load muskets and only five percent to fire. But even more amazingly, of the thousands of loaded muskets, over half had multiple loads in the barrel. This illustrates the point: Humans have a natural barrier to killing other humans. This is good.
As it was realized, the modern military had to find a way to overcome this. It was found that only 15-20 percent of the riflemen in WWII could bring themselves to fire at an exposed enemy soldier. Men were brave, men were willing to die, they were willing to give themselves as a sacrificial offering for their nation, but they were not willing to kill. When the military became aware of that, they systematically went about the process of trying to fix this "problem." To fix it they used silhouettes instead of bulls-eyes. Then they went on to use pop-up targets of a human outline. As the technology became available, video-simulations of battles were used to train soldiers that it is perfectly acceptable to kill the enemy. By the Korean War around 55 percent of the soldiers were willing to fire to kill. And by Vietnam the rate rose to over 90 percent. The Video Games worked. Something very similar to this desensitization toward violence is happening to our children through violence in the media, but instead of 18-year-olds it begins at the age of 18 months when a child is first able to discern what is happening on television.
Why do commercials during the Super Bowl cost $2.5 million for a thirty second spot? An ad run during Seinfeld (in its time, of course) cost $2 million each. $750,000 for a spot on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?". There is a reason why. Ford, Coke, Apple, and every other company know one simple fact: it works. The money spent on these ads will be remade easily. They know that the Joe watching these ads will be urged to buy the product, even if he doesn't realize it. How many times have you bought a product thinking, "since I saw this commercial, I will buy this item"? Now, how many times can you look back and realize in hind sight that's exactly what you had done? Advertising works. Television is a powerful medium, and it tells us what is right to wear, what we should behave like, who got married to J-lo this week.
A scary note: "two plus" is what the rating system for television is referred to as. It means that they are targeting two year olds.
"Blame it on the video games and/or the media!" is not my cry. But we need to admit something here: video games and TV are effective at altering the thinking process of people, children included. Without any balance, there is a massive problem.
I'm sure you know that it is widely accepted as a national law, and more concretely as a state law in nearly all fifty, that firearms and any other defensive tools are strictly forbidden on school grounds. Do you think criminals do not know this? Criminals are known to choose victims that they believe will resist the least. Of course they do! They may be criminals, but they are proficient at their trade, and not stupid. They are well aware that schools are extraordinarily unlikely to have the capability to put up any sort of a defense. I firmly believe this is why an Amish school was chosen in Lancaster County. The shooter had no grudge against the Amish, but he surely knew that it would make a very easy target. It appears clearly to me that he did not care WHO he shot, just that they not fight back. Is that why he ordered the men to vacate, and then ordered the women to face away, and form a line against the chalkboard, and drop to their knees before he began executing them?
I am not suggesting that we begin teaching a class in 2nd grade, "the defensive handgun and you", but I do think its unreasonable to tell a principal that he is responsible for the safety of a school full of students, and then not allow him the tools that are available to him to protect himself when he is alone or with his family in public. The same goes for teachers. They are ordered to lock, hide away from the door, and call the police in the event of an armed intruder. Why do you suppose they should call the police? Because it is clear that at this point, laws and legal deterrents have not been effective in stopping this individual from committing a violent crime, and it is necessary to meet force with force. That force can either be a police officer and his side-arm, or a legally armed school-faculty member who is trained and willing to utilize that training to eliminate the threat posed to him and the student body.
Why is it that so many parents these days are convinced that if they don't take their kids to baseball practice, to karate, to football practice, and then back to the baseball game, they must not be good enough parents? Especially in rural areas, families whose kids are not in a multitude of organized activities are looked down upon as though they are not putting enough effort into the proper up-bringing of the children. Why is it no longer sufficient for parents to turn the kids loose on the neighbor hood with a ball, a bat, and dad's old glove with the single caveat of "be home by dinner?"
Ipods, cell phones, padded bras, and thongs. Why do six year olds need these things? Why do parents buy them these things? Is it because the parents can relate to the created need? In this society, we are convinced that we need to have the shiniest, fastest, smallest (or biggest) of everything. People are willing to sacrifice family values in order to provide with material things. How many times have you seen this happen: a person NEEDS to have this one particular thing in order to be happy, and when they buy it they are-for a while. Before long, it no longer makes them feel fulfilled, and they go on to the next thing. Are parents doing this to their children as well? To make up for lost "emotional value", they provide them with material items that do not hold any value. The result is a child who is empty, and does not know what will fill the void.
I saw on the news the other day a story about a teenage boy who had beaten to death a homeless man. When asked why he would do such a thing, the teen replied, "I guess for fun...it was entertainment." What is a boy like this missing that he thinks he will be able to fill with killing homeless men and women?
I don't know what I think should be done. I don't know what should be changed. I just know that there is something very wrong in America right now, and we need to figure out what it is. The recent string of school shootings has just been a catalyst of thinking for me, and these are some things I came up with. I don't know how valid they are. What do you think?
