I`m totally aware. That`s why I look for the reasoning behind the statistics. For instance, violent shop robberies are up because gas stations have taken precautions against robberies, like cameras and bulletproof glass cabins for the clerks which they are instructed not to leave while on night-shift, that shops havent yet. Then again, gas station robberies were up because shops all installed steel lamellar armour on their storefront. It`s a bit of an arms race. The preferred way to rob a store these days is to ram a vehicle (preferably a caterpillar) through the wall. The preferred way of stealing money from an ATM is to drag the machine out of the wall with a heavy forklift, making away with it, breaking it open at leisure and selling the remains as scrap metal.
OTOH I`m totally unimpressed by the rising number of murders reported in today's regional edition of the Metro (of all papers) because I think that 12 murders a year (up from eight) is incredibly low for a city such as Rotterdam anyway, and not a statistic by a long shot.

Seems to me that might have been 'violent behaviour', or acts that would be considered crimes today. Or otherwise, the ratio of violent crimes vs nonviolent crimes. Anyway, I suppose there are no statistics on whether the ingredients of popular stories, entertainment and games have become any less violent this last half to whole millennium, because that is what we should compare it to, if we are to get any statistical indication of a relation between violence and popular media. I know for instance we no longer play such games as ganzeknuppelen (geeseknocking), in which riders on village squares have to knock the heads of live geese with a single blow while galloping past them. It`s called cruelty to animals these days. (After all, the horses might hurt their legs running over poorly cobbled village squares.) Neither do we throw christians to the lions, nor heathens to the wolves, anymore. (No wonder football has become so popular. There`s hardly any competition left.)

Well, lack of exercise for one thing. But I really think children should get plenty of exposure to each other and other people. Especially in those teenage years where the social bonding part of their brains get reshuffled. I haven`t got as much problems with children playing violent games as, say, my sister (who actually has children), but I don`t think they should be doing it on their own, certainly not for hours each day.

Healthy and intelligent, you said it. If only, right? Rules and regulations are made for the weakest. (In theory anyway.) I happen to have superior genes and so do my nephews.

Kids are terribly intelligent. But intelligence is not a stand-alone and not always healthy. Back to the mental toolset I mentioned. Someone said there was more evidence of video clips being echoed in today's youth culture than of video games doing the same. That`s probably because youths spend more time raving and partying than racing cars and stalking homocidically. When confronted with a violent situation, though, would the games and movies have any effect on their reactions? If kids are severely pressed, would they rather choose for a violent solution?
Isn`t the danger not so much the level of violence, but instead the fact that violence in games and action movies _works_ and, maybe even worse, isn`t only made to feel justified, but even righteous?

________________________________________________________

IRL: Edwin Hofstra

- mostly crewing at the moment