The heinous crime late last week that took the lives of 12 persons and wounded 58 in Aurora, Colorado, has led to a number of so-called pundits and commentators pontificating about the danger caused by America’s inadequate gun laws, even though Aurora had strict gun control laws. However, to put the monstrous criminal act in some perspective, in President Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago, there have been more than twenty-five times the number of people murdered so far in 2012 than died in the Aurora massacre.
Most of us respond to the murdered victims of Chicago with a mere shrug of the shoulders, and perhaps a momentary outrage, but then we move on. Sadly, that includes President Obama. Had one or two persons in Aurora brought their legal and licensed, concealed weapons with them to the theater, lives would have been saved. Although the Second Amendment serves primarily as a check on an oppressive and authoritarian government, it has other benefits to our society. As most of my readers know, an armed society is a polite society.
I noted that one of the alleged killer’s former classmates said that the accused killer Holmes had lost touch with reality after becoming “obsessed” with video games. His classmate told the Daily Mail: “James was obsessed with computer games . . . I can’t remember which one, but it was something like World of Warcraft . . . He did not have much of a life apart from that. . . . James seemed like he wanted to be in the game and be one of the characters. . . It seemed that being online was more important to him than real life.” And in his first court appearance, media reports said the accused killer believed he was The Joker playing his role in a film.
In the midst of the terror caused by the gunman, few have dared to suggest that the violence in video games, television programs and films have spawned and contributed to the violence in our society. I understand that the research into media violence and its effects on children is a “highly polarized research field,” according to Christopher Ferguson, a psychology professor at Texas A&M International University. Nevertheless, numerous studies have shown that watching excessive amounts of violence on television or playing violent video games produces aggressive tendencies in children and young adults. Even so, we are fortunate in that for most children, even though they are affected at some level by watching excessive violence, they do not typically trigger violence in real-life situations.
One of the few who has sought to link the events of Aurora, Colorado, with excessive media violence has been Charles Hurt, who wrote an open letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers. In his open letter, available here, he appeals to the consciences of “a bunch of smutty purveyors of violent fantasy, half-rate actors and an industry of sick narcissism.” I quote at length from his letter:
Your celebrations of diabolical mayhem and pornographic violence prey on the fantasies of sick, fragile minds. You insulated them from the painful reality of bloodshed. You have inspired mass murder. You are the Osama bin Laden of this travesty. . . . When you die, your grave stones should read: Here lie men who created such horrific, meaningless violence in such realistic scenes that a sicko carried it out for real and shot 70 people, killing 12, including a 6-year-old girl. To be fair, you haven’t only inspired murderous rampages. It is true that you have also entertained. But is the fleetingness of that entertainment nearly so profound as the terror you inspired here? Will it outlast the irreversible permanency of 12 deaths, including that of a 6-year-old girl? Which brings us to Warner Brothers, those titans of decency. You bankrolled “The Dark Knight Rises” and so many other pointlessly violent movies that infect feeble minds and bring hatred upon America. You, it is reported, are feeling really sad about those poor saps who paid to see your wicked movies — only to have the very scenes come alive and kill them in the dark, sticky rows between seats of a movie theater. Out of your “respect” for these people, you declared you would not announce box office receipts from this weekend’s snuff film. Instead, you will count your $150 million in blood money — privately. One day, you will meet the original Joker, the inventor of all evil who is diabolical and depraved so far beyond your furthest, sickest imaginations and there, in his lair, you will spend the rest of eternity wishing you had had a little decency back when you had the chance.
Yes, Mr. Hurt is very, very angry, and we should be as well. I am reminded of St. Paul’s teaching in Philippians 4:8, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” And perhaps it might help change things in a more positive direction if we refuse to go to such violent films and to stop buying violent video games. After all, the journey to a national recovery must begin with a single step. Let it begin with me.
Bingo, Michael. The violence of the video games and films seems to go from bad to worse. Can you imagine a video game called “Killing Bush” or “Killing Obama”? The “right to bear arms” is one thing; the right to “free speech” is another. But addictive role playing in games killing dozens of people surely has to push some people over the edge.
For those interested in the long history on the impact on children and young adults from media violence, here is a thoughtful and very interesting article by Carl Cannon:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/24/screen_violences_effects_a_dark_knight_indeed_114892.html
Peter Bogdanovich, well-known film producer, was quoted recently, “Violence on the screen has increased tenfold [over the past 44 years]. It’s almost pornographic. In fact, it is pornographic. Video games are violent, too. It’s all out of control. I can see where it would drive somebody crazy. I am in the minority, but I don’t like comic book movies. They’re not my cup of tea. What happened to pictures like How Green Was My Valley or even From Here to Eternity? They’re not making those kind of movies anymore.” He further noted, “Today, there’s a general numbing of the audience. There’s too much murder and killing. You make people insensitive by showing it all the time. The body count in pictures is huge. It numbs the audience into thinking it’s not so terrible. Back in the ’70s, I asked Orson Welles what he thought was happening to pictures, and he said, ‘We’re brutalizing the audience. We’re going to end up like the Roman circus, live at the Coliseum.’ The respect for human life seems to be eroding.”
http://www.amazon.com/Stop-Teaching-Our-Kids-Kill/dp/0609606131/ref=la_B001H6MBBM_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1343259456&sr=1-4
Book by Dave Grossman, insightful. Most of his work is aimed at helping military/law enforcement personnel understand the effect violence has on people. He notes that the ability to take human life is not normal or natural (he sights shots fire/hit ratio stats from WWII compared to Vietnam, and modern law enforcement officers vs mass shooters to illustrate) , desensitizing is one of the ways it is made “easier”.
“Although the Second Amendment serves primarily as a check on an oppressive and authoritarian government, it has other benefits to our society.”
Really?. When has it served as a check on n oppressive and authoritarian government in American context?. Right now, Govt is acting pretty oppressively to Churches and where are the guns?.
The very language of second amendment says
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Thus the second amendment was intended for the security of the state, a standing army for that purpose not been envisaged, and not for any protection of the individuals from the state and neither it has ever served for the check on an oppressive government.
Hey Gian, first, the right of the Second Amendment is a personal right, and this right is reaffirmed in numerous Supreme Court decisions in recent years. Remember that the Founders feared the notion of a standing army. Further, I cite the comments of rapper and constitutional law authority, Ice-T, who, on a television broadcast in Great Britain, explained that owning guns is legal in America. “It’s part of our Constitution. The right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.” So, even after more than two centuries, Americans like this freedom, and they are prepared to risk a lot for it. Anyway, how would the federal government confiscate all the guns in America when they can’t even seal a border with Mexico, let alone track the people living in the US illegally?
Perhaps you quote Ice-T ironically.
In a republic, one protects oneself from the police by political means and not by guns.
But my question is not answered. When have the guns been used in America to combat a tyrannical government?
You do raise an interesting point about guns as a check on the monopoly of governmental power. It seems that governments, knowing that there are these weapons in the hands in the populace, will be extremely cautious to propose, enact and enforce policies that threaten the fundamental rights of American citizens. The proof of this is that any radical posture taken by Congress or the President, even in our current day, is taken by stealth or corruption. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed just before Christmas 2010 in a lame duck Congressional session. The Obamacare fiasco was passed through corruption by one party (Cornhusker Kickback, etc.). And this is why it is certainly reasonable to expect a political tsunami is headed our way when we awaken on November 7th. We can see it in this weekend’s events in Dallas.
We forget that the first use of laws to ban firearms in this country was when freed blacks in the south were using them to hold off white oppression after Reconstruction ended and federal troops were withdrawn, and southern states restricted the Second Amendment for that reason. The Supreme Court was of no help to blacks then, ruling that redress of rights denied had to be first submitted to the states — and it was the states that were denying blacks their rights, no so much directly as in restricting legal sales of firearms to expensive and somewhat rare models. That led to the popularity of cheap, illegal weapons being sold to blacks, first called “suicide specials” and then “Saturday Night Specials.”
Nolan has nothing on Quentin Tarantino and others.
“Gratuitous” only begins to describe the vile violence.
May God have mercy upon us all.