Just how far is too far in this day and age?
The world can be a scary place. Actually, let me amended that. The world IS a scary place. At times, I almost prefer the damp dungeons and undead zombies of our virtual universe, as reality can often be far more brutal and unnerving. With threats growing around the world, the United States latest strikes against terror group ISIS is a staunch reminder of what evil lurks around every corner (no matter what politicians in Washington might say). A nation’s conflict in a certain part of the world coming to a close does not mean those dangers suddenly evaporate into thin air, just because an executive order has been singed half-way across the globe.
But even if you don’t keep up with world affairs (as many would rather slam their delicate bits in the refrigerator door than watch five minutes of the nightly news), games like Call of Duty have at least given you a glimpse at this dark underbelly that does exist. The debate regarding violence in video games is still as prevalent as it’s ever been, as the FPS genre has exploded in the last decade. Call of Duty consistently pushes huge sales revenue, even setting industry records on a regularly basis. And while C.o.D. touches on many hot-button topics that mirror historical events, the developers behind the series have typically tried to stay out of the political scene.
That is until recently.
Black Ops director Dave Anthony was invited to a recent forum entitled the “Future of Unknown Conflicts.” Here he floated a rather controversial idea regarding how to fight terrorism on the home front (which involved putting boots on the ground within our very own schools). “The threat now, the invasion, comes from within. Imagine there was a concept of something like a ‘school marshal. These guys are U.S. soldiers who are in plainclothes, whose job and part of their responsibility is to protect schools. They’re not walking around in camo gear with machine guns strapped around their shoulders. But they are armed and capable of dealing with threats as they happen…The public won’t like it, they’ll think it’s a police state…What I want to do is try and challenge people to think about these issues in a different way.” He says.
While this does seem like a radical move, it’s important to approach this debate with an open mind and weigh its merits equally (without letting ideology cloud our “big picture” thinking). So let’s layout the pros and cons.
OK…pros first. I’m sure you’ve heard this argument in the past. More guns placed in the hands of responsible people acts as a deterrent against those who would seek to do harm. I’m not sure I can argue with this logic, as violence is the only thing some violent people understand. I think back to the Columbine Shooting. If a troop of plain clothes officers or ex-vets were on the premises that morning, this assault would have resulted in a loss of life far less than what occurred. Hell, I doubt these two punks would have even walked in there. Putting up fences around our playgrounds to protect children from oncoming traffic is common place these days. Sadly, erecting a new type of fence (made up of civil servants) to guard against more dangerous threats may have become a necessary evil in 2014.
On the flip side of this coin, there is one significant con I can think of. The police force in the U.S. has seemingly become vastly more militarized in recent years. You can turn on the news and witness cops dressed in full on tactical gear, sporting assault rifles and heavily armored attack vehicles. It’s gotten to the point where it’s easy to mistake the local news for a CNN broadcast live from Fallujah or Baghdad. The motto “To serve and protect…” has lost much of its luster in the eyes of the public lately, as faith in local law enforcement is at an all-time low (according to the latest Gallup polls). I included the infamous image of the UC Davis protest above to help illustrate this point, as the officer is so un-phased by burning his fellow man’s eyes with mace, it’s almost like he’s just watering a garden. So this makes me wonder if this strategy is a step in the wrong direction. What message are we sending todays’ children (not to mention future generations) about the nature of our society? Are we doomed to live a gestapo-esque existence for the rest of our lives, filling our schools with soldiers alongside our academics? Then again, if only ONE child’s life could be saved as a result of such an extreme measure, is it not worth all the baggage that may come along with it?
We don’t subscribe to the mentality of “brainwashing” people (which Mr. Anthony would later suggest during his forum), as we legitimately want to hear what you think! Use the comments section to let CheatCC know how you feel regarding this outside-the-box idea. Would you send your child to a school protected by armed guards, or instantly withdraw them from that district? Sound off below!