What is to Blame?

---

On April 20th, 1999, two students entered their high school armed with guns, bombs, and one ...
to kill. They began their rampage in the hallways killing one teacher and two students and contin On April 20th, 1999, two students entered their high school armed with guns, bombs, and one objective: to kill.
They began their rampage in the hallways killing one teacher and two students and continued to the library where they ended their massacre with the murders of ten more students and their own collective suicides. To this day, the real motive behind the crimes has yet to be determined, however, initial speculations pointed to music in particular.
It wasn't until much later that the students' backgrounds and living environments were investigated, which is a very concerning fact. So much emphasis was placed on one subject that it overshadowed the logical sources of the crime.
Music alone is not to blame for the shootings and violence in America's schools. Other factors such as politics, living environment, and the criminal's background play a much larger role in the lives of the students than music and to put the spotlight directly on it is illogical.Violence in schools is a topic that is widely debated in Congress and other political arenas.
Congressman often speack of the "cruel" and "harsh" lyrics of today's music and how it plays out in the lives of the listeners. They cite such acts as Marilyn Manson, Ozzy Osbourne, Snoop Doggy Dogg, Eminem, and other artists as the cause for many violent acts, whether it's murder, suicide, rape, kidnapping, or burglary.
What the politicians don't understand is that by concentrating on music so much, they are giving teenagers an excuse to commit these heinous crimes. The way politicians treat the issue is that all a child or a teenager has to do is listen to the lyrics of an explicit song and violence will become inevitable.
Most of these lyrics are representative of the artist's way of life. What they don't understand is that vulgar music is not the problem.
It is a symptom of a problem much larger. It's not the catalyst of the crimes committed; it's the outlet for artists who have been involved in or witnessed those types of crimes.
The purpose of the music is not to promote the violence but to inform the public of these atrocities. Being a musician, I know that the music has emotional ties in an artist's life, which they choose to express to a new community of listeners.
However, the true meaning behind the song is lost in politics. The music doesn't push a person to commit a crime.
What the politicians fail to notice is the conditions under which the suspect is living and the other factors that contribute to the violent behavior. A teenager's living environment is a major contributor to violence among juveniles.
Every school has at least one person that is considered a "bully"; more often, though, it is more than just one person. Different "cliques" conduct social wars in a sense, which lead to face-value judgements and hateful verbal exchanges.
For instance, a kid wears a Marilyn Manson shirt to school, and one of his peers in an opposing social group begins to mock him for it. The kid comes back the next day and shoots him, did music cause the violence or did the mocking? Neither can justify the teen's actions, but was music really the greatest contributing factor in the shooting? Additionally, in the Columbine shooting, the two students were described as being social outcasts that were ridiculed and joked about by their fellow students more so because of the lifestyle they lived than the type of music they listened to.
However, the mockery of their peers was not part of the blame, it was the music that stole the limelight. Because they listened to Rammstein and Manson, the public stressed that their lyrics caused the outrage, not the scorn of their classmates.
Therefore, although music was involved in an indirect way, it was not the main motive for the crime.The most imporant factor behind teen violence is a child's background. If children grow up in a household where they are left to fend for themselves, they oftentimes begin using drugs, failing out of school, and becoming violent.
Therefore, music doesn't have any influence on the child growing up; it is lack of parental guidance that leads to violence. Nevertheless, if a child is raised in a family where the right morals and values are taugh, listening to some type of "vulgar" music won't necessarily corrupt them.
Children need to have a person to talk to about their problems and misgivings in life, whether it's their parents, teachers, or even their friends. Someone without these outlets tends to let their rage build up inside them until it bursts without warning.
For example, the Columbine killers were practically ignored by their parents. They built pipe bombs in their rooms and basements, were convicted of robberies and other crimes, and bought weapons with ease, often shooting them around their homes.
If their parents would have paid more attention to them and punished them for these actions, those thirteen people may still be alive today. However, their ignorance was overlooked initially and once again music was to blame.To hold music itself accountable for the crimes committed in today's society is almost as appalling as the crime itself.
The criminal and their background are far more important than what kind of music they enjoyed. Maybe they were abused by their parents, ridiculed by their classmates, or scorned by their superiors.
It seems that everything rational is thrown out the window in favor of taking the easy road for a motive. Remember, music doesn't pull the trigger, the suspect does.
Article Tags: Music Doesn't Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com .