The general decline in standards today

[Feraud]

I'm beginning to think it's not just too much violence in media, although that's certainly not a good thing. I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's *too much media* period. Children are immersed in media before they're old enough to process it properly, in ways that those of us raised thirty or forty or more years ago never were. And we haven't even begun to understand what that does to the development of the human brain. I think the more "plugged in" we become as a society the more of this kind of aberration we're going to see -- the human mind was never meant to function in a constant, unrelenting state of sensory overload.

I agree with this. The current state of media saturation in conjunction with other elements like parental influence (or lack of) and the continued stigma of recognizing and dealing with mental issues all play a part in contributing to violent outbreaks.

Consider people you know or have encountered who have the potential for such violence. We should be as concerned about the number of people who walk around suffering with violent tendencies as with the guy who goes bezerk.

 

[Undertow]

I don't know that the media has always been so "in" the victims' faces, though. There is no shred of privacy for these grieving people.

I'm afraid to ask this because it makes me sick to even imagine the answer, but...

...do you wonder if maybe some of these victims, or families of victims, are quite eager to have their 15 min of fame no matter the cost?

 

[AmateisGal]

I'm afraid to ask this because it makes me sick to even imagine the answer, but...

...do you wonder if maybe some of these victims, or families of victims, are quite eager to have their 15 min of fame no matter the cost?

Realistically? I would wager that yes, there are. And that's just terribly sad.

 

[sheeplady]

I'm beginning to think it's not just too much violence in media, although that's certainly not a good thing. I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's *too much media* period. Children are immersed in media before they're old enough to process it properly, in ways that those of us raised thirty or forty or more years ago never were. And we haven't even begun to understand what that does to the development of the human brain. I think the more "plugged in" we become as a society the more of this kind of aberration we're going to see -- the human mind was never meant to function in a constant, unrelenting state of sensory overload.

Well, we do know that "screen time"- any time spent behind a screen- be it a TV, a computer, a phone w/ screen, a kindle- actually is bad for development and can lead to behavioral problems before age two. It used to be recommenced by the American Academy of Pediatrics that children under age 2 get zero screen time a day; but the public backlash was so bad and there was so much disbelief that they relented and said that under 2 hours was appropriate. But they still recommend that people limit the time to nothing until age 2. Beyond that, throughout elementary, it should be 2 hours or less a day.

I don't know a single child who spends less than 2 hours a day exposed to screens, at any age.

 

[AmateisGal]

Well, we do know that "screen time"- any time spent behind a screen- be it a TV, a computer, a phone w/ screen, a kindle- actually is bad for development and can lead to behavioral problems before age two. It used to be recommenced by the American Academy of Pediatrics that children under age 2 get zero screen time a day; but the public backlash was so bad and there was so much disbelief that they relented and said that under 2 hours was appropriate. But they still recommend that people limit the time to nothing until age 2. Beyond that, throughout elementary, it should be 2 hours or less a day.

I don't know a single child who spends less than 2 hours a day exposed to screens, at any age.

Is this screen time just zoning out in front of a video game or t.v. show, or does the study take into account the several learning games kids can play online to improve math, spelling, etc.? Because in my daughter's school, they do a lot of learning through computers - and I really think that's true of a LOT of schools these days.

 

[Andykev]

Yes. But not as might be assumed. They want a VOICE to let others know they lost a loved one.

That is why we have funerals and cemeteries, Masses for the Dead, Rite of Christian Burial, and other ceremonies.

If someone shot my kid, I would LOVE to be on TV and tell the world how horrible it was.

It's part of the grieving process. Horror, shock. Then Denial. Then Anger. Then Acceptance. Hopefully, years perhaps, Forgiveness.

I doubt they want to appear on TV talk shows and sign book deals.

 

[AmateisGal]

If someone shot my kid, I would LOVE to be on TV and tell the world how horrible it was.

Not me. I don't think I'd be functioning. In fact, they'd probably have to put me in the hospital and give me some major sedatives. No, I'm not kidding. The LAST thing I'd want is a bunch of darn cameras in my face asking me, "How do you feel?"

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I'm afraid to ask this because it makes me sick to even imagine the answer, but...

...do you wonder if maybe some of these victims, or families of victims, are quite eager to have their 15 min of fame no matter the cost?

No, I do not think they would. I also think it's tasteless the way the media is exploiting pictures of people crying and that they would prefer to be grieving in private.

 

[jamespowers]

I think we need to put this in perspective here. This is not even near the top five worst gun massacres by an individual. There were far worse around the world. It doesn't make it any less horrific but it is not unique to the US. There are crazy people everywhere and when they go off it is tragic. The difference is that, in other countries, they don't go off on a tangent trying to blame everything else except the person who did it.

 

[Undertow]

Yes. But not as might be assumed. They want a VOICE to let others know they lost a loved one.

That is why we have funerals and cemeteries, Masses for the Dead, Rite of Christian Burial, and other ceremonies.

If someone shot my kid, I would LOVE to be on TV and tell the world how horrible it was.

It's part of the grieving process. Horror, shock. Then Denial. Then Anger. Then Acceptance. Hopefully, years perhaps, Forgiveness.

I doubt they want to appear on TV talk shows and sign book deals.

Everyone reacts differently, and I think what you've described certainly is valid. You've also touched on the steps of grieving which I think most folks endure.

I was actually wondering about those folks, and I'm not trying to be grotesque, who actually do want the book deals. I guess it's better if I hadn't said anything...but when I look at the news articles, the words "hero" and "survivor" keep popping up in these relentless interviews with the victims, and I just don't know who's being glib and who's still in shock.

I also think kids are exposed to entirely too much today. It's one thing for tabloids to spill Jack the Ripper's victims across the front page, but it's another thing when a child reads Facebook, Twitter and a bunch of blogs, all saturated with this crud, all day, every day.

Entertainment may be too violent, but I do think the devil is in the oversaturation.

 

[Undertow]

No, I do not think they would. I also think it's tasteless the way the media is exploiting pictures of people crying and that they would prefer to be grieving in private.

Isn't that the truth? It hurts to the bone to see the anguish in these people's faces. I can't even look at them.

I wonder how numb some people must be who can scan these pictures and move on without the slightest tinge of sadness.

A friend of mine in the military just mentioned this last night, actually. He said having served in both Iraq and Afghanistan has left him numb to this stuff. And he doesn't think that's a healthy reaction, by the way.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And the copycats begin.

 

[lolly_loisides]

I think we need to put this in perspective here. This is not even near the top five worst gun massacres by an individual. There were far worse around the world.....

Nor was it the first time patrons in cinemas have been attacked. In 1959 a mentally ill man entered a Sydney cinema armed with a tomahawk & attacked theatre goers. He killed one & left over 15 seriously injured. Australian gun laws are very different to the US, I imagine if he was able to get his hands on a gun it would have been far worse.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...4NWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7uQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1712,2215031

 

[sheeplady]

Is this screen time just zoning out in front of a video game or t.v. show, or does the study take into account the several learning games kids can play online to improve math, spelling, etc.? Because in my daughter's school, they do a lot of learning through computers - and I really think that's true of a LOT of schools these days.

It's any screen time, I believe. So if your child is playing educational games that counts towards their 2 hours.

I don't think most elementary students here spend more than 2 hours a day on the computer. But I also live in an area where the educational day is less than 6 hours long and they don't have a computer for every three students in the schools, yet alone more.

It seems like if they are spending more than 2 hours a day on the computer, that leaves little time for teacher-based instruction. At the elementary level here- they have about an hour for lunch and recess- that leaves 5 hours. Considering that they also have gym, art, and music (an hour a day on rotating days), that leaves 4 hours. I'd be pretty upset if they were using half of the time they have left on computers, to be honest.

 

[jamespowers]

Nor was it the first time patrons in cinemas have been attacked. In 1959 a mentally ill man entered a Sydney cinema armed with a tomahawk & attacked theatre goers. He killed one & left over 15 seriously injured. Australian gun laws are very different to the US, I imagine if he was able to get his hands on a gun it would have been far worse.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...4NWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7uQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1712,2215031

Hmmm.. that didn't stop Martin Bryant from killing 35 people and wounding 21 in Port Arthur, Australia on April 28, 1996. That was the third Worst Gun Massacre by an Individual.
"Martin Bryant reportedly had an obsession with the movie trilogy Child's Play. His killing spree lasted 8 hours. He is currently serving 35 life sentences plus 1,035 years without parole in the psychiatric wing of Risdon Prison in Hobart Australia. Bryant allegedly told a next door neighbour that "I'll do something that will make everyone remember me." Bryant initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but was persuaded by his court-appointed lawyer and the prosecution to plead guilty to all charges. He has attempted suicide six times while being imprisoned and now resides at the Wilfred Lopes Centre, a secure mental health unit run by the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services which is a 35-bed unit for inmates with serious mental illness which is staffed with doctors, nurses and other support workers. Inmates are not locked down and can come and go to and from their cells."
A lot of similar circumstances there..... Crazies are crazies wherever you find them. :eusa_doh:

 

[lolly_loisides]

^^^^^^^^
Yes, but the availability of guns in 1959 was very different to 1996 (I'm not even sure if semi automatic weapons were available for sale in 59), and if there was any good to come out of the Port Arthur massacre it was that the Australian Government (and a conservative govt at that) banned the sale & ownership of all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns to private individuals, and introduced a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

 

[John in Covina]

Let's no get on the ban guns BS here. The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto learned that lesson well.

 

[Edward]

Let's no get on the ban guns BS here. The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto learned that lesson well.

Godwinned!

 

[Andykev]

Godwin's Law. Finally..

"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches . In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

 

[MikeBravo]

Let's no get on the ban guns BS here. The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto learned that lesson well.

You will have to forgive us John, no other country in the West that I know of has the same gun culture as the US. We have difficulty understanding how something like that can become so ingrained in the psyche of a nation and could invoke such passion in people. The thinking that a person has the "right" to carry a deadly weapon wherever they want without questioning seems very foreign to most of us.

Our politicians have reacted to various shooting massacres, and we have had a few, by taking definite action in restricting the types and numbers of firearms available. Our police did not even carry sidearms until the late 1970's.

Then again, out politicians don't have to worry about being shot dead, as many American politicians would have in the backs of their minds. Yes, we did have an attempted political assassination attempt in the 1950's, however this was not firearm related, although a pistol was used.

It appears that he had a shooting licence, I wonder if a personal interview is required to be done prior to one being issued? I occured to me that if he had been inteviewed in his own home for the licence alarm bells would have been raised and this incident avoided.

Are there any concrete theories about what might be done in the US to avoid these issues, while still maintaining people's rights to carry weapons?