I know this isn’t going to be a very popular opinion, but let’s give this an objective thought.

Violent video games and kids –  this is like the blame game that’s as old as time.
Everyone seems to forget that video games have ratings, just like the movies.  Unlike movies, selling video games to those who are under age could cause the dealer to be fined $10000.    Yep.   There’s four zeros there — per infraction.

Even if there was a Game Stop employee who had — no idea — about video games, the big rating indicator on the front page would be difficult to ignore.

So, underage children having violent video games is like a child getting Jack Daniels and a Marlboro.    It doesn’t happen.  It shouldn’t happen, but it does.

How does a child get these games?
Hummm…..  We don’t have to think to hard about this.
Ignorant parents or family buys the child the game or the child could have copped it from a friend – whose parents have similar issues with reading the big M rating on the cover of the game.

I guess that’s the first part of the equation.
The second part is what type of parents allow their children to play these types of games?   I know there’s a ‘nerd’ stigma attached to video games.   For some, that stigma is like a virus… an infection…  Think Ebola or the Mad Cow Disease.  These are people that are just willfully ignorant or just really trust their child’s upbringing to an unknown industry.

Other parents may just have such little interest about their child’s downtime that anything she or he may do is just peachy.    The child isn’t really a child.  Ho no.  Rather, she or he is just a small adult who has only been around for ten years.  The child is only a child when she or he is supposed to be.  You know, this would be at a parent-teacher conference.  The child would be treated like a child there, but not at home.

Course, there could be a third derivative.  That’s people like me.   I grew-up watching the Coyote running off desert cliffs.  Casper was a mentally and physically abused ghost of a boy.  A mouse and cripple a cat… but it’s okay.   Two seconds later, no mater the situation, everything is fine.    I was nurtured on cartoon violence, and I’m (sort of) all right.    It’s okay for a child to indulge.    She or he will  be just fine!

Okay.  The first two types of parents/family are just stupid.    There’s restrictions in place.  There’s a reason.  If the game ratings are ignored, that’s on the person who sold the game and, even then, parents have ultimate responsibility for the welfare of their child.

As for me, games are not cartoon violence.    I won’t deny that Bugs and Daffy probably inspired some young hunters, but cartoons are not video games.  Video games can be exceedingly intense.  Heck, I nearly failed six college classes because of my EQ addiction.  I can only imagine how easily it is to get hooked on a game that has beautiful graphics, intuitive game play, and is in a sand box.    That’s nice.    It’s exciting and an outlet for stress.  The mind becomes engaged and the cares of the world just fade away.

The person’s dull reality becomes transposed by something more urgent.   It’s a place where the person is empowered, needed, and better than their day-to-day self.   A person becomes special, develops superhero powers, and there’s always more to gain.  The evils of the day are palatably defeated and, should something go wrong, there’s always a reset.

Someone who thinks she or he is ugly can become beautiful.   The beautiful can become scary.  A player can be short, tall, big, fat, human, elf, or troll.   It doesn’t matter.  No one will know.   A girl can play a boy.   A boy can play a girl.

A game can transcend a person.
Social and personal restrictions melt away.

In a perfect world, a child wouldn’t need to lose her or himself in a video game.   Their lives should be their adventure.  World War II would be learned in history class, not in Call of Duty.

But this isn’t a perfect world.
Parents are not perfect, judging by the percentage of obsess children, there’s a lot going on there.

Who is accountable?
And it’s not the government.   The government doesn’t force a child to play Call of Duty and pick up a Colt.  There are governments that do that, but not here.   We’re supposed to be more accountable than that… and more free.

You know what?

This ran entirely off track.
Didn’t mean to get on my high horse.

What I wanted to write about, briefly, that if people have to undergo a mental check-up to purchase a gun  — as per previous blog —-  I think parents would —– want —– their children to be entrusted to those who have the mental acuity to use a firearm.     If the person doesn’t mentally qualify for a gun, why should that person be trusted?

Further, guns would be purchased by those who passed the mental check-up to prove that they did.

Owning a gun would be a new fad.   It’d would be expected.   Those who don’t have one would be suspected for being mentally unstable.

Sure, this is a little extreme.   Some people may not want to undergo the mental evaluation at all for fear of what they may find out, but I think that group would become progressively smaller as the program goes on.    After all, if there is a mental potential for unwarranted violence, wouldn’t the person want to know about it — before — possibly committing an act?

Then, said person could receive counseling until she or he is no longer a threat to society.  — or brainwashed.  Take your pick.

In essence, society would change to focus on the overall mental health of the populous.  That could solve most of society’s ills, right?    Mental health is related to addictions, weight, and physical health.

Essentially, gun owners would be considered trusted, needed, and relied upon.

Escalate to deescalate.
Let the fire burn itself out.  Make the abnormal normal.
It can happen. It has happened.   It can happen again.