Return to story
James Holmes--the Colorado theater shooter--believed he was the Joker, and Adam Lanza , the Newtown killer, was known to play "graphically violent video games." There were extenuating circumstances in each case, but common sense tells us that what we watch can influence behavior.
Why are there no cigarette commercials? Because we have decided smoking is bad for you, and seeing people smoke might encourage the young to take up smoking! So doesn't it make sense that if people see guns and killing glorified, a troubled mind might do the unimaginable?
People act on ideas. They do not act because they see an inanimate object and are compelled to use it without first embracing an idea.
The existence of guns did not make Holmes or Lanza do what they did. Movies are a powerful means to invoke ideas and stimulate an emotional response. Video games create graphic killing images and muscle-reflex habits. Guns, ubiquitous in both games and movies, are used to carry out glorified carnage.
So where's the outrage? Why are Hollywood and the game makers not held complicit? If we can restrict smoking, alcohol, and oversized sodas and label food so as to protect us, isn't it time to consider the affect that extremely violent and dehumanizing movies and videos have on people? Place restrictions on them. This makes more sense than going after the Second Amendment.
Oh, wait a minute, what political party does Hollywood love? I understand now.