This is also the time when divorce became much more acceptable and as families split apart children had schedules and lives that could rival a corporate schedule shuttled between families, daycare, school, etc. Then there were the "latch key" kids in the 80's.
I think the sociological aspect of children's lives is really different in "this modern world". For instance, in the 60's there was no McDonald's, three channels on the TV if you were lucky, cartoon time Saturday morning (that was it), no meds (many weren't developed until decades later), before big Agra when food had better nutritional value, and a time of much more permanent roots, real estate was for living, not flipping, when renting was affordable, when jobs lasted a lifetime, before Malls, before shopping on Sunday, way before technology. -A time when kids walked everywhere, biked, played street games, little league, explored the woods, gathered at public swimming holes, the beach, rivers, lakes, etc., etc. Read books. And worshiped (some very reluctantly), Sunday dinner with extended families. It was a simpler time. Lifelong friendships were formed. Because life was simpler.
While I know many families seek to provide that consistency, lifestyles are often contrary, and I have wondered if the use of social media is a born out of a longing for "the neighborhood".
We are seeing such a rise in certain conditions, childhood diabetes, autism, ADHD, and kids are prescribed drugs. It's not that this is new or didn't exist before; schizophrenia still manafests in the late teens early twenties, but I wonder about the effect of an inert lifestyle on children.
A child's energy could power the space shuttle... Where does it go when Phys Ed and music programs are cut, when there's no neighborhood to run around in, when their lives are so proscribed? As they are shuffled around is their connection, their desire for the neighborhood found in their little glowing devices?
A few years ago I remember this 2014 article out of New Zealand about a principle who believes a playground with no rules was a better way. The premise being, let kids fall down and figure out. It's a lot like my growing up.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/story/no-rules-school
And what is happening to the disenfranchised ones? We know gangs are a substitute family. And so are these radical groups and connections online. They fill the gap of what's missing, a sense of belonging? What are the commonalities of disenfranchisement? This brings me to the question of what is missing in this demographic of shooters?
We can look at the mental and sociological aspects but truth is if a radical "gang", or thinking, is so readily accessible online, if hate is the new love, if the ways and means to commit an atrocity is readily available, and the gang rewards it as heroism, I am not sure there is a category in the diagnostic manual for this?
