Where do kids learn gun violence from?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CORDITE

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
32
The reason for this question is following a conversation i over-heard between a mother and her son. I was recently at one of those huge discount stores that sell everything from shoe lace to plasma screen t.v.'s when i noticed a little boy sitting in a trolley holding a box which contained an air-soft, berretta type, pistol. His mom was explaining to him how to use it. This is the conversation that took place:
Mom:"You just pull this thing back and leave it and then you shoot it."
Son:"Ok..but..(garbled)..oh..."
Mom:"If you shoot your sister im gonna take it away from you."
Son:"What if she hits me with her hand? Cos she hit me with her hand the other day!"
Mom: "No."
Son:"If she hits me im gonna take my gun and shoot her!"
Mom: (says nothing,rolls eyes!)

This kid couldnt have been more than 5-6 years old,yet he knows that a gun is a means of "defending" himself. I was saddened by hearing this, thinking that he might grow up not knowing how to handle a gun with respect but i said nothing and walked by...:(
 
A) He's young. Retaliation is second nature.

B) He probably hasnt had what you and i migh call formal gun instruction.
I shot people will dart, disc, and nerf guns when i was that age. Doesnt make me evil. I own three guns today and i havent and wont (god willing) shoot anyone yet.
 
Where do kids learn gun violence from?

Repeat after me, there is no such thing as "gun violence". There is violence, and then non-violence. There are crimes involving guns, and even violence involving guns, but the term gun violence is one that denotes something special about a firearm being involved. We don't have terms such as knife violence, or bat violence, or hand and foot violence...


Now, as for the question of "Where do kids learn violence from?"

Same place adults do, human nature and environment. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, even if no one taught you how to use the hammer in the first place.
 
THE INFORMATION AGE

Children "learn" violence (involving guns, fists, clubs, cars,etc.) from a steady diet of unsupervised television. That's the majority. Sadly, there are those few who learn first hand.

"Gun Violence?" IMO, it should be "violence involving guns." Granted there's more of it on the tube than in the past..take that to the bank and earn interest. But kids have been playing "cops and robbers", "cowboys and indians" forever.

Violence is crammed down our throats from the tube, local news (if it bleeds it leads), cable..even "The National Geographic Channel" and "The Weather Channel" ("It Could Happen Tomorrow") use violence as a mainstay audience grabber.

PlayStation2..any gaming venue..is pure violence for the most part. I wouldn't single out "gun violence" and hold it up as an example, since violence is becoming more prevalent in every corner of the world we live in.

Music glorifies violence. It's more evolutionary than revolutionary..and to stay with the thread, kids learn violence (gun and other forms) primarily from TV and movies.

Take Care
 
Here's my take.

As human beings, children don't have to "learn" violence from anywhere.

If watching violent TV is why kids become violent, then there shouldn't have been any violence on earth before 1946, because 1946 was when TV was available on a large scale to the civilian markets.

Kids dont' have to "learn" violence from anywhere. You don't have to teach a two-year-old to slap, bite, kick, or pull hair when he or she is angry.

Here's an experiment for you. Take a whole bunch of little kids, and put them into an environment where there are no violent things to see or model.

You'll still have violence break out when the kids get old enough. You'll still have fights. You'll still have the urge to hurt others. You'll even have, provided you put enough humans into that group, a murder or two.

Humans don't have to learn violence from anywhere.

hillbilly
 
beaucoup ammo said:
Children "learn" violence (involving guns, fists, clubs, cars,etc.) from a steady diet of unsupervised television. That's the majority. Sadly, there are those few who learn first hand.

Explain all the 'third-world countries' where they don't have much in the way of running water, let alone television.


PlayStation2..any gaming venue..is pure violence for the most part. I wouldn't single out "gun violence" and hold it up as an example, since violence is becoming more prevalent in every corner of the world we live in.

False. The majority of the titles for any game system are sports, driving, puzzle or adventure-related.


Music glorifies violence. It's more evolutionary than revolutionary..and to stay with the thread, kids learn violence (gun and other forms) primarily from TV and movies.

Again, explain all the 'third-world countries' where they don't have much in the way of running water, let alone television. Kids aren't becoming more violent, a cursory glance through history will show this. Teenagers ruled kingdoms, had children, waged wars and murdered many. The difference is not in the amount of violence, it's in the frequency and speed at which it is reported to us.

We are no more violent as a nation, culture or a world, we're just discussing it more because it is being reported in larger volumes at faster velocities. It’s easy to blame TV, music, games, whatever, but in order to cull what seems to be the aggressive nature of the human race, one requires parenting and guidance, like we do to cull our other basic yet crude natures.
 
Agree With The Human Nature Aspect

However, if you look at statistics dating from "1946" to present, I'd wager the obvious excelleration of the growing obsession with "violence" is due to television. Gun or otherwise. From "Boston Blackie" and "Gunsmoke" to the "Law And Order" and "CSI" franchises, violence is the prime ingredient.

Hillbilly's point is well made in "Lord Of The Flies." IMO, combining that human nature, with the violence made available to kids from every direction..just adds fuel to the fire.

Take Care
 
Children with violent disorders and conditions that do bring about violence will gravitate towards violent TV, games and Music, but the tendency is already there, the problem has just not yet materialized in the actions of the child. And many kids will be attracted to that sort of media because of the excitement - children do not generally gravitate towards media that portrays "rape", even though that is an act of violence because there is no excitement in it; except maybe for someone with a predetermined sexual condition or defect as well. However, Quake, while being a video game where one kills demons and monsters, the child is put into the shoes of the hero that saves the world...which I would argue is where the real appeal lies with most children that do not already have some latent tendency towards violence.


As for Killology, junk science, too many assumptions, not useful except to sell books.
 
Are You Kidding?!

"The difference is not in the amount of violence, it's in the frequency and speed at which it is reported to us."

The correct formula is Content + Frequency. If you viewed a kid's choice of entertainment, the violent content is off the scale. Like a radio station playlist, violence gets a fast rotation.

Take Care
 
Kids learn violence by partaking of media meant for adults, without adult guidance or supervision.

Pretty much sums it up, but let me explain myself.
It might sound like i'm blaming TV or video games, but i'm only partially.
The true problem is that kids are watching this, or partaking of this media meant for adults, without an adult there to guide or explain things to them, to put it in perspective.

So In effect, i'm blaming the parents.
 
Violece $ells

"Media entertainment is big business: popular culture products are now the United States' biggest export.

In 2001, people around the world spent US$14 billion going to the movies. The U.S. domestic box office alone hit US$9 billion—a 75 per cent increase from 1991—and there are huge revenues from home video/DVD sales, rentals and spin-off merchandise. But even these profits are dwarfed by music, the largest global media sector. In 2000, sales reached US$37 billion, with music consumption high among young audiences everywhere. Video games are not far behind: global sales for 2002 were anticipated to be US$31 billion.

An Expanding Foreign Market

Already, almost 80% of movies sold overseas come from the U.S. movie industry. Increasingly, U.S. firms are buying up screens and production entities around the world.

(Source: Danny Schechter, Media Channel, 2000)
?

American media corporations earn at least half of their profits from foreign sales. And global markets are growing fast as standards of living are rising around the world. Sales of TVs, stereos, VCRs and satellite dishes are increasing, and in the last decade or two, new and expanding markets have emerged in countries that have abandoned state control of media and distribution.

Today, U.S. films are shown in more than 150 countries worldwide, and the U.S. film industry provides most of the pre-recorded videos and DVDs sold throughout the world. American television programs are broadcast in over 125 international markets, and MTV can be seen in more foreign households than American ones.

This international success has a tremendous impact not just on the recipient countries, but also on the cultural environment of the U.S. To some extent, the tail is wagging the dog: more and more, the demands and tastes of foreign markets?are influencing what popular products get made in the U.S.

And what is the demand for?

Action Sells: Film and Television

Nowhere is this influence more evident than in the film industry. In the U.S. and Canada, movies rated "G" (General) and "PG" (Parental Guidance) consistently bring in more revenues than R-rated films. Yet the number of G and PG films has dropped in recent years, and the number of restricted films has risen. Two-thirds of Hollywood films in 2001 were rated "R."

Film producers are unequivocal about why this is so: the foreign market likes action films.
In a crowded marketplace, where everyone is trying to be heard and where there's an amazing number of choices, the loudest, coarsest, most shocking voice does tend to be the one that at least grabs your attention for a moment.

(Source: John Seabrook, Nobrow: The Culture of Marketing, The Marketing of Culture, 2001)
?

Action travels well. Action movies don't require complex plots or characters. They rely on fights, killings, special effects and explosions to hold their audiences. And, unlike comedy or drama—which depend on good stories, sharp humour, and credible characters, all of which are often culture-specific—action films require little in the way of good writing and acting. They're simple, and they're universally understood. To top it off, the largely non-verbal nature of the kind of films that journalist Sharon Waxman refers to as "short-on-dialogue, high-on-testosterone" makes their dubbing or translation relatively inexpensive."

Content Is Violent And Directly Impacts A Young Person's Actions And Perceptions.
 
NineseveN said:
Repeat after me, there is no such thing as "gun violence". There is violence, and then non-violence. There are crimes involving guns, and even violence involving guns, but the term gun violence is one that denotes something special about a firearm being involved. We don't have terms such as knife violence, or bat violence, or hand and foot violence...


Now, as for the question of "Where do kids learn violence from?"

Same place adults do, human nature and environment. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, even if no one taught you how to use the hammer in the first place.

Well said Sir.
 
beaucoup ammo said:
The correct formula is Content + Frequency. If you viewed a kid's choice of entertainment, the violent content is off the scale. Like a radio station playlist, violence gets a fast rotation.

Take Care

In terms of making one desire to do violence, Content means nothing without a predisposition towards violence or a complete lack of parental guidance in regards to morals and norms.

I was speaking about the difference in todays society and those of the past not being the amount of violence done in society, but it being the frequency and speed with which the reports of violence and made known to us. I was not trying to make a correlation between that and why people do violence, only why we seem to discuss it more often.
 
Violence is nature

If I've learned anything from my biology classes in college, it’s that violence is nature. It’s a natural instinctual act. You can look at any species of any creature & they kill or at the very least have a precursor to fight. They kill/fight their own; they kill/fight other species. Some do it for food, others for power/hierarchy. Even down to creatures as minute as viruses or single celled organisms (they take control over cells & in most cases destroy them or render them useless). We may very well be the only species that takes our violence or tendency for it, into consideration. I am not condoning violence, but what I am saying is its already in us, its a part of who we are as animals, and yes, we are still animals no matter how much more advanced we are than other species.

You don't have to agree with me or not, but I believe that maybe certain situations or circumstances in life might provoke or encourage violence but it’s not a learned trait...it’s already there.
 
Without anyone responsible in their lives young children just mimic what they see, whether in real life or on TV. Because there wasn't any responsible adults looking after me when I was young, I did what I seen in real life and on TV. There was always violence in my life as well as being allowed to watch movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As I grew up I gained common sense. By the time I was 11 years old I stopped beating up kids as well as chasing them with potentially lethal weapons like knives and a chainsaw.
 
I have a 4 year-old and don't let him watch anything on TV with ANY type of violence, gun or otherwise, yet he now makes guns out of Legos, sticks, and whatever he can find. As near as I can tell, he must have gotten this from his friends at preschool (which, by the way, forbids toy guns, even made from legos).

As far as playing with toy guns goes, I try not to make a big deal of it unless he points it at someone. I forbid him from pointing toy guns at ANYONE, though. Muzzle awareness should be taught at an early age.
 
NineseveN said:
Now, as for the question of "Where do kids learn violence from?"

Same place adults do, human nature and environment. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, even if no one taught you how to use the hammer in the first place.


Exactly. Violence is human nature.

Teaching kids to have self control and find other ways to deal with things besides violence, that is the job of the school system, no wait. Teachers and babysitters, no wait. I know, friends and televison. No no, ... hang on..
I swear I read it somewhere...

Oh yeah. Parenting! That was it.

The conversation you overheard is the result of crappy parenting, plain and simple.
You heard it direct from the mom, you even quoted her:

Mom: (says nothing,rolls eyes!)
 
TV, movies, media, video games, peers. It's all in the culture that the kids grow up in. You can't change the culture and you will have a tough time screening them from it (not sure that'd be a good idea anyway). All you can do is give the kids some solid values and educate them against bad influence and let them take it from there.
 
IMHO It all comes down to parenting, If you want your child to be non-violent, you have to let them know from a early age that violence will not be tollerated. Siblings are allways going to horseplay and pick on each other, it happens in every fammily that I have seen, but the children that grow up the most behaived are the ones with the parents who would give harsh punishments or even the slightest acts of violence.

It is also neccesary to encourage your kids to look for ways to solve problems non-violently, and discuss the consequences of violence and the difference between make-believe and real violence.

The parents who let things slide send a message to their kids that it really isn't that big of deal and they can get away with it.
 
Agree That Violence Is There..

..and being nurtured by media and production companies. When you become "comfortable" with something..profanity for an example..you're not even aware that your using it. IMO, violence is now currency that's taken for granted.

I don't condone it..but I'm realistic enough to know that violence is there 24/7 in amounts that I wouldn't have imagined 40 years ago.

I most certainly agree that a parent is responsible for what their child is exposed to..to a point. After that, the child's home life and the values imparted them by their parents are the only filters they have against the onslaught of a culture that is increasingly glorifying violence.

Take Care
 
while there is no disagreement that violence sells, I find it hard to see any correlation between increase in violence in the media and violence in the world, in the past 60 years since TV has been invented, we have had numerious wars, Korea, Vietnam, gulf war, panama, afghanistan, the current war in Iraq, granada, just to name a few, However if you look at the 60 years before the creation of TV we have WW2, WW1, spanish american war, philipean uprising, the tail end of the Civil war, if memory serves me right, and that just what america was involved in. I'm sure there is probably close to 10 different conflicts that the british had within their empire in that time span.

And while I know that the wars and conflicts listed are more an example of political policy than violent attitude, people have been killing each other for as long as we have been around, and people will always continue to kill each other for the rest of our exsistance as a race, its just that it gets reported more often nowadays than in the past. one example is bowling for columbine, where michele "the sloth" moore is interevuing someone who comments on how violence had actually decreased in that city by some percentage, I forget exaclty, but he continued on saying that media coverage of the violence had increased 600%.
 
How you go from this:

beaucoup ammo said:
"Media entertainment is big business: popular culture products are now the United States' biggest export....

In 2001, people around the world spent US$14 billion going to the movies. The U.S. domestic box office alone hit US$9 billion—a 75 per cent increase from 1991—and there are huge revenues from home video/DVD sales, rentals and spin-off merchandise. But even these profits are dwarfed by music, the largest global media sector. In 2000, sales reached US$37 billion, with music consumption high among young audiences everywhere. Video games are not far behind: global sales for 2002 were anticipated to be US$31 billion.

An Expanding Foreign Market

Already, almost 80% of movies sold overseas come from the U.S. movie industry. Increasingly, U.S. firms are buying up screens and production entities around the world.

(Source: Danny Schechter, Media Channel, 2000)
?

American media corporations earn at least half of their profits from foreign sales. And global markets are growing fast as standards of living are rising around the world. Sales of TVs, stereos, VCRs and satellite dishes are increasing, and in the last decade or two, new and expanding markets have emerged in countries that have abandoned state control of media and distribution.

Today, U.S. films are shown in more than 150 countries worldwide, and the U.S. film industry provides most of the pre-recorded videos and DVDs sold throughout the world. American television programs are broadcast in over 125 international markets, and MTV can be seen in more foreign households than American ones.

This international success has a tremendous impact not just on the recipient countries, but also on the cultural environment of the U.S. To some extent, the tail is wagging the dog: more and more, the demands and tastes of foreign markets?are influencing what popular products get made in the U.S.

And what is the demand for?

Action Sells: Film and Television

Nowhere is this influence more evident than in the film industry. In the U.S. and Canada, movies rated "G" (General) and "PG" (Parental Guidance) consistently bring in more revenues than R-rated films. Yet the number of G and PG films has dropped in recent years, and the number of restricted films has risen. Two-thirds of Hollywood films in 2001 were rated "R."

Film producers are unequivocal about why this is so: the foreign market likes action films.
In a crowded marketplace, where everyone is trying to be heard and where there's an amazing number of choices, the loudest, coarsest, most shocking voice does tend to be the one that at least grabs your attention for a moment.

(Source: John Seabrook, Nobrow: The Culture of Marketing, The Marketing of Culture, 2001)
?

Action travels well. Action movies don't require complex plots or characters. They rely on fights, killings, special effects and explosions to hold their audiences. And, unlike comedy or drama—which depend on good stories, sharp humour, and credible characters, all of which are often culture-specific—action films require little in the way of good writing and acting. They're simple, and they're universally understood. To top it off, the largely non-verbal nature of the kind of films that journalist Sharon Waxman refers to as "short-on-dialogue, high-on-testosterone" makes their dubbing or translation relatively inexpensive."

To this:

Content Is Violent And Directly Impacts A Young Person's Actions And Perceptions.


..is beyond me.



You have shown that the majority of most market segments enjoy "action movies", music and video games (including adults and children), but you have not shown that "violent content directly impacts a young person's actions and perceptions" above all else.

It's easy to term action movies as violent and state that children are drawn to them and it makes them violent, however, let's not take the easy way out.

There are a few anomalies, but generally all major-market movies of the action genre depict heroic situations of individuals struggling against some form of evil and using action as a tool. They show self-sacrifice, bravery, selflessness, intelligence, courage to accept and face tough choices...very few movies (and video games) are violent without reason. Movies and video games do not glorify violence any more than Shakespeare does, or the story of King Arthur, or history lessons do.

As for music, you are only looking at a small genre when compared to the overall music industry. Metal/Rock/alternative and such do not depict violence, I don’t think country does, techno doesn’t, most Hip-hop doesn't either, it's a small niche of gangster rap that does it, and when compared to the overall music market, it's pretty small.
IN short, so-called violent TV, Music and video Games is propaganda terminology, as by the standards that folks use to define “violent media” today would include every single piece of literature I read in Classic English Literature 101 in college. It’s complete nonsense.


Furthermore, if these forms a media were to blame, would we not see more violence amongst those that partake in such media? I grew up on Rambo and Doom, I've never shot anyone in anger, nor have I wanted to. Of course, my parents took charge of raising me and making sure that humankind's most basic instincts that were found within me were formed into the mold that society sets the standard on.

These instincts are there from the beginning. Our natural instinct, as animals, is to fight when we are mad, like every other animal in the great big jungle of life. When we are aroused, we copulate. When we want or need something, we take it, if something gets in the way of our wants or needs, we fight. Concepts such as laws, rules, social norms and societal values are alien to unaware children and all of the animal kingdom. We are not born social creatures in the sense that society is defined to us and by us as a species in this age, we have to be taught and matured into it…when that education is not done and that maturation does not complete, humans maintain or revert into the primitive aspects of our species.
 
It's the parents fault. I went into a videogame store recently. They have these little stands where the customer can play demos of recently released games. I saw a kid who couldn't have been more than 9 playing "Hitman". He was running through the level stabbing people that didn't even need to be killed! :what: All this time, his mother was standing behind him not saying a word until it was time to leave. :fire: Then these same idiot parents say they weren't responsible for their kids taking Uzi's to school & shooting up other kids, teachers, etc.:cuss:

A lot of parents these days should be arrested. They want to be able to have careers, their own lives, that kind of crap. And the media encourages this! Ever see "Desperate Housewives"?:barf: My answer to that is that they shouldn't have had kids. If you are a parent, spending time with your children should be the most important thing in your life. Kids need a mother at home full time, a father who works but still has time for his family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top