Unbelievably, a California city initiated the ban. In 1956, Santa Cruz officials banned rock ’n’ roll music at public gatherings, fearing it might corrupt young people. The music was just getting started when officials argued it was “detrimental to both the health and morals of our youth and community.”
Read more What Can Be Done About U.S. Government Weaponization and COVID Secrets?
That would be followed in the 1980s by criticism over obscene lyrics in rock ’n’ roll music that were also believed to have a negative impact on the young. The Parents Music Resource Center—a group co-founded by Tipper Gore, the wife of then-Democratic Senator Al Gore —initiated action to require warning labels on albums containing such lyrics. Performers such as Frank Zappa protested her efforts and testified before Congress to oppose the proposed measures.
Needless to say, since then, such lyrics have only gotten worse. Whether they have contributed, over time, to the detriment of our youth is for experts to determine. However, there should be little doubt that, by backing away from social constraints and proper behavior, young minds have been affected, triggering a major transition over the decades.
Accordingly, America has witnessed a major and gradual shift from the generation of the Baby Boomers (1946–1964)—originally targeted by Santa Cruz officials—to the youngsters of Generation X (1965–1980), Millennials (1981–1996), Generation Z (1997–2012), Generation Alpha (2013–2024), and Generation Beta (2025–2039).
This shift has become most notable in recent years in the violent activities undertaken by young people. Between 2016 and 2022, homicide rates among them increased by 65%. Also, in 2022, gun assault deaths among children and adolescents reached a peak of 1,674. The past two decades have witnessed a 60% increase in youth suicides. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, youth violence in America has become “a serious public health problem.”
Youth violence is defined as “the intentional use of physical force or power to threaten or harm others by young people ages 10–24.” Various factors have fed this problem. Easier access to firearms has contributed. However, while guns are involved in many youth violence cases, they are not a cause but rather a tool by which young people are able to effect the violence they seek. It is unnecessary for those hellbent on committing violence to possess a gun, as they will employ whatever tool is available to carry it out.
Such was the case of Karmelo Anthony, then 17, who stabbed and murdered Austin Metcalf, also 17, during a confrontation at a high school track meet. It is difficult to comprehend why Anthony would arm himself before attending a school sporting event unless he was looking for trouble and not willing to wait for it to find him. His violence earned him a 35-year prison sentence.
Fitting the youth violence profile also is the accused assassin of political activist Charlie Kirk, who was killed while speaking at Utah Valley University in September 2025. Tyler James Robinson, then 22, has been charged with his murder.
While it appears Robinson legally obtained the gun allegedly used in the shooting, parents who bear some responsibility for their children’s access to guns used in acts of violence are now being held accountable. Recent convictions in Georgia and Michigan have demonstrated this, where school shootings occurred after the shooters gained access to firearms in their homes.
There are four causes of youth violence—the last of which will undoubtedly draw criticism, although I would strongly suggest that it gets shortchanged as an underlying cause.
The first cause is a lack of responsible parenting. Many children today are allowed to ignore basic behavioral norms. But parents are the primary influences in their children’s lives and must teach them respect for others, especially senior citizens and authority figures.
It was good to see a video of a 19-year-old girl who, having fled police in her vehicle only to be arrested, was berated by her father, whom she had called afterward, for not being respectful and compliant. However, she was far too old to still be learning this.
Read more The Belated Execution of Major Hasan
The second cause is a meaningless education in which students are taught neither substantive topics nor the need for discipline. There is no other explanation as to why 84% of Generation Z Democrats approve of socialism. Concerning merit, schools embrace a policy that ensures every student passes regardless of it.
Today, twelfth graders’ math comprehension is at its lowest level ever recorded. Students are taught that a lack of hard work will still move them forward. There is no appreciation for a principle they need to know in life—i.e., no pain, no gain.
Society itself is another cause. What has happened to the concerns expressed in 1956 by Santa Cruz officials and in the 1980s by political activists like Tipper Gore about negative influences on our children? The reins of societal control have been totally removed, empowering young minds to run wild with little consideration for the impact of their actions, especially when they are totally unsupervised. Included within this category is peer pressure.
This cause was demonstrated late last year by eight teenagers, aged 14 and 15, who had traveled to Florida from Pennsylvania for a football tournament. Far from home, instead of working as a team to focus on game preparations, they allegedly worked as a team to steal over two thousand dollars’ worth of goods from a Dick’s Sporting Goods store.
They were arrested and charged with third-degree felony retail theft and conspiracy to commit retail theft, missing their tournament game. Their coach, rather than using the arrests as a learning experience about honesty, irresponsibly pleaded with police to drop the charges against his players, seeking to give them a free pass rather than teach them about accountability.
Recognition of a fourth cause may offend some readers but cannot be ignored. The initial shift in the transition of America’s youth and the violence they have now embraced probably began in the early 1960s. This was the same time a shift began in the typical family structure.
The father had long been the sole breadwinner in the family, with the mother serving as the primary supervisor and disciplinarian of their children. However, the 1960s would trigger a change by which the father was joined in the job market by the mother. This resulted in less and less parental supervision of children.
What contributed immensely to this change in family structure (with no intention to sound sexist here) was the release in 1960 of the birth-control pill. While the pill gave mothers the opportunity to develop their own independence, it also helped families meet economic needs and achieve a standard of living 50% higher, after inflation, than it was fifty years ago. But such independence came with the cost of child disciplinary and behavioral problems.
Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated by more recent generations, some parents have failed to recognize the price of failing to provide certain behavioral standards for their children. For the worst children among them—those committed to doing violence—they fail to comprehend that such actions always come with consequences, not only for the victims but for them as well.
As outrageous as it may seem by today’s standards, perhaps the Santa Cruz officials were on the right track by initially trying to focus on and address a societal impact.
Read more The inconvenient nature of men and women
Image created using AI.