Little is known in these early hours after the massacre at Virginia Tech.  The Blacksburg campus will never be the same though.  Although we don’t yet know the identity of the shooter or his motive, I have a theory about what could have been the prototype for this shooting as well as the Columbine shootings.

We now have a whole generation of people who have spent a part of their lives at a gaming console, in front of a TV or monitor killing other human beings in a virtual world.  This is part of popular culture and since popular culture envelopes the lives of some Americans so completely, video games featuring gratuitous bloodshed and mayhem are part of a common lifestyle.

The line between virtual mass murder and real mass murder can be easily blurred for many people.  Many people find themselves caught up in a world of internet relationships and video games and this is an escape from real life.  This becomes their lives and they relish the escape and the sense of control they find in this world.

With games like grand theft auto or counterstrike, there is reward for killing innocents.   Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the killers in the Columbine tragedy were said to be caught up in Doom and other video games of the day.   Killing without remorse or emotion is taught in these games.  Is it any wonder that what happened today at Virginia Tech is possible?

It may take time before we learn that the killer was heavily involved as a gamer, but I am sure that this information will be revealed in the days ahead.  Nowhere in our history do we find such a propensity by young people to kill on a mass scale outside of the theater of war.  The only phenomenon that is new is violent video games. 

For the sake of our society, we have to put an end to violent video games.  Those who are immersed in this world will fight any effort to put an end to this segment of gaming, but for the safety of countless innocent people, it has to be done. 

There is this information from the National Institute on Media and the Family:

Effects of violent video game content on aggression
Although video games are designed to be entertaining, challenging, and sometimes educational, most include violent content. Recent content analyses of video games show that as many as 89% of games contain some violent content (Children Now, 2001), and that about half of the games include serious violent content towards other game characters (Dietz, 1998; Children Now, 2001; Dill, Gentile, Richter, & Dill, 2001). Therefore, among the games being purchased and played by youth, a majority contain violence. The popularity of video game violence has spurred much research on the possible harmful effects on children and adolescents. A meta-analysis by Anderson and Bushman (2001) found that across 54 independent tests of the relation between video game violence and aggression, involving 4262 participants, there appear to be five consistent results of playing games with violent content. Playing violent games increases aggressive behaviors, increases aggressive cognitions, increases aggressive emotions, increases physiological arousal, and decreases prosocial behaviors. These effects are robust; they have been found in children and adults, in males and females, and in experimental and nonexperimental studies. This is not to say that no studies have failed to find evidence of an effect. However, the majority of studies have found such evidence.

Most of you know that New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine was involved in a horrific crash that left him with multiple injuries.  When I read the story,  I saw a clear message that I would bet few people thought about.

I wish the governor a full and speedy recovery and realize that there is a long road ahead of him.  What was interesting about this incident was that the Governor was apparently not wearing a seatbelt, something that is the law in New Jersey.  I could not help but think about how clearly this illustrates the modern liberal mantra.

Liberals preach to all of us about what we should and should not do.  They even dictate what we can and can not say.  State governments have decided that drivers are required to wear seatbelts.  This law makes good sense since it saves lives and should be common sense for most people by now.

Is it just me or is there an instructional analogy in the fact that Gov. Corzine was not wearing a seatbelt and that this runs contrary to what NJ government tells citizens they are expected to do?   Isn’t this just like the left?   Isn’t this just like Teddy Kennedy or Al Sharpton?  Isn’t this just like Al Gore with global warming or the mayor of San Francisco with gay marriage? 

Most will lament that the Governor would have probably faced fewer injuries had be been belted in.  I would add to that the fact that he wouldn’t be a prime example of liberal hypocrisy either.