IHAVENOCLUE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 22,442
- Reaction score
- 5,352
I think the real problem with exposing kids and teens to violent and overly sexual media is when they come from troubled backgrounds and/or have neurological or mental health issues. That stuff seems to incite them.
The "chance" of something like this happening is exceedingly, exceedingly rare. So parents who allow young kids to roam are not leaving it up to chance. They have more to worry about with accidents, the number one killer of young kids, and then next, health issues.
Homicide after being abducted by a non-family member is extremely rare. It always has been.
Everyone who knew and loved Jenise is a victim. That's why others give victim-impact statements at the trials of murderers.
Samantha Runnion. My neck of the woods. That murder absolutely killed me. She was one of the sweetest, most innocent children ever.
But given the stats for this kind of thing, such vigilance is probably not warranted. I know I keep saying that, I know it's an emotional subject and not what people want to or really can hear when discussing a horrific case like this, especially when the death of another baby has just smashed us in the gut, (and I also admit to being a hypocrite when I talk about this, because my behaviors and fears are similar to everyone else when it comes to this issue), but the facts are the facts. And the facts are this: More kids were not being killed during the 40's, 50's, 60's or 70's when kids like me were allowed to roam free everywhere, all the time.
Things have not gotten worse in our country. They've kind of stayed about the same over the years, when it comes to these monstrous crimes.
Because the risk of such a thing happening is so incredibly low, relatively speaking, we have more to worry about with lightening strikes, animal attacks, car and other accidents, cancer, etc., it's not like parents are serving them up for any perp to enjoy, when they allow them to play outside unsupervised.
Don't get me wrong - I'm paranoid and you'd never catch me allowing my baby to roam around for hours. I certainly dont' agree with allowing kids to be gone for hours and hours with no check-ins, etc.. But again, the risk of this kind of thing is just super, super low. It doesn't feel that way, but it is.
I don't mean to annoy everyone. But, I;m repeating this for two reasons: One, in defense of a family who made different choices than me and who are suffering incredibly right now. Two, because I have struggled with anxiety disorder all my life, used to be panic disorder (and agoraphobia as a teen for awhile), and so the culture of fear in our country especially, fear mongering in general, and misstated or misunderstood risks is something that is a huge sore spot for me because I think that being infused with unwarranted fears led to my problems and does the same to others.
So, I have to constantly combat irrational thought it my own mind and I challenge it when I see it sometimes in other areas, because it reaffirms for me that the world, although it has its significant problems, is not a fanged monster waiting to attack me. I guess I'm saying I repeat the truth about the things we discuss on here (also things like plane crashes, epidemics, the safety of the flu vaccine), because it helps me.
Finally, I like to make these points because my paranoia and my choices should not determine whether others are taking heedless risks or are making bad parenting decisions. I've learned to give others slack. I've learned that the upside to freedom from fear, to freedom in general, can be far greater than any risks associated with a freer mindset or lifestyle.
:clap: