Grossman says that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to video games if they teach children to kill, but does any game really teach you to take someone's life? Just because kids pretend to shoot at a makebelieve bad guy, doesn't mean that they will grab dad's shotgun and
Yet I believe that this book, “The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier, should be kept in schools to be read by teenagers. Many people believe that this book should be banned for the fact that it talks about bullying and violence. In a couple parts of the story, Jerry is beaten up. There are also multiple parts where the Vigils or Janza bully a kid. But that isn’t so bad that we should ban it.
Another point researchers bring up is saying punishing kids by law makes more people think before drinking and driving. “ The law would make so that people would think twice about drinking and driving” (Thomas). People agree with this because no one wants to go to jail so it makes them to think twice about doing it. Overall being punished by the law shows kids/adults would not be able to get away with drinking under age and driving
In order to persuade them, he takes advantage of leading question to guide his audience to his way of thinking. “Did the sensibilities created by the modern, video kill games play a role in the Littleton massacre?”(44) The question assumes that the audience will believe such aggression associated with the simulated violence. By means of sentence words “Yes” and “No”, he makes a point of bringing up the rational arguments to his audience. It illustrates that “there isn't any direct connection between most murderous games and most murders,” but “responsibility for protecting children from dangerous games lies with their parents, many of whom like to blame the entertainment industry for their own failings.”(44) The use of “Yes” and “No” aims to deepen the audience understanding of the truth that “We are now a society in which the chief form of play for millions of youngsters is making large numbers of people die.”(44) With appropriate language and clear articulation, it provides an account of his ethics that the audience will give the argument as much
Diet of television is the answer. I think parents should not replace a baby sitter for the TV, or even replace them selves for the TV. I know a lot of parents who prefer to sleep 30 minutes alone, and all they do is send their children to watch TV or play violent video games, they totally forget about the damage it is causing to them, and when they grow up parents complaint why their children are so violent with them and everybody else. I think the idea of built-in time-channel lock circuitry is awesome. Imagine a kid solving a puzzle -which will help to develop his brain- instead of watching TV; also this kind of activities will keep him safe from violence.
Politicians love to use the idea that removing legal guns will drastically reduce suicides, asassinations, gang-violence, school shootings, accidental child deaths, and general murders. They don’t consider the fact that someone that wants to kill themselves will do it anyway they can, or a college kid trying to tear up his school will just blow it up if he cant find a gun. Gang’s don’t use registered guns to commit their crimes, they use black market weapons. The result of implementing full gun control will not only endager the civilians of the country because they cannot defend themselves, but will also lead to people losing their freedom and living in fear. The criminals should be living in fear because they know that their victims have the ability to retaliate when attacked.
there is no solid proof that the media causes violence, and although parents do a lot to help and protect their children, there are still some steps that can be taken to protect their children against violent and sexual material. Government intervention not stands for it. Violence starts at home, not on TV or in a computer game. America needs to stand together and fight youth violence and promiscuous sex without taking away the rights of citizens. We all want to help America's youth, but Government intervention (stronger enforcement of existing laws or new legislation) into availability of popular culture media would not help to reduce violence and promiscuous sex among America's
They say the games became to life like for the boys to handle which lead to the homicidal thoughts and in the long run the massacre itself. I feel that no matter how depressed, involved, or drawn into a game one is that it justifies an excuse to not maintain reality. Just because you are able to unleash anger in a video game or take out pent up aggression in a video game does not make hurting or killing a person ok. If you can’t handle playing the game, then don’t play. These influences and or warning signs should have been taken far more seriously I feel then they were.
Only the illegalisation of the guns will make people acknowledge that these objects are harmful. In America owning a gun is considered a human right but people without guns also have a right to feel safe. This right is taken away from them when they experience school shooting or other crimes involving arms. Tens of lives wasted, a striking experience for the children that witness the carnage. All this and yet there is no response to the illegalisation of guns.
Some believe that children who go on shooting rampages should be tried as an adult. Other solution proponents proposed were new technology devices such as trigger locks and personalized guns. Opponents of gun control in schools believe that stricter laws and regulations are unnecessary. They believe that children will commit crimes regardless if they have a gun or not. They say that “it’s not the gun that pulls the trigger, but the person behind the gun that does.” If a child cannot use a gun, then he will use a knife or any other GUN CONTROL AND PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS AS AMERICANS 13 Weapon.