Smokin,
Every generation since the beginning of time has thought the the kids of the one after theirs were spoiled and doomed. It's the nature of the beast. We all want to romanticize the past. I'm a history junkie. But if you really look at it, and what was being written and said at the time about the 'kids', it's always the same. Just because the world changes, and new 'stuff' appears that the kids want, doesn't mean we've fallen off the rails.
Everything you talk about you and your wife doing with your 10 and 7 year old, is what good parents do. Parents have always done that. Are there parents who aren't good at it? Absolutely. But that's been true forever as well.
Since this is a WW2 based game, I'll use 'the Greatest Generation' as an example. We love to make them larger then life because of how we've glorified and romanticized that war. I was sitting at a family gathering a while back and someone started a rant about the current generation and was lamenting them not being like the "Greatest Generation'. I pointed to my 21 year old nephew who'd just come back from a year long tour in combat with the 101st in Afghanistan and said there was a member of the greatest generation in the room and pointed at him.
He struggled in school, tested limits with his parents and all the usual stuff. But when push came to shove, he did what was needed to do, just like those kids back in the 40s. If you dig in to their stories, they screwed up, tested limits, challenged their parents too.
You can't blame the kids for being kids now, as they didn't have a say in the matter. Nor can you blame the parents for parenting now. It doesn't mean the world is coming to an end. It's just another generation dealing with what parents and kids deal with.
To say that today's kids don't get it, is to suggest the parents don't get it. Well that means the parents of the parents didn't get it and so on.
Understand that people react to tragedy in different ways and want to find someone or something to blame. It's not rational. But it is part of grieving. The AR15 I sold recently was bought right after my 21 year old son died. I bought it and an Springfield M1A because we enjoyed shooting and talking guns. I bought them in the agony of the pain of losing him. In my mind I thought that maybe, just maybe he'd come home because I could finally get the guns he really wanted. Guess what. It didn't work. But it was, was it was, and in some crazy way it helped me. I sat up by myself with that M1A where we'd deer hunted, dreaming and praying my son would walk out of the woods and join me. Didn't happen. I sold the AR15 and gave the M1A to his best friend's Dad because I knew I'd never shoot Andrew's guns and I suppose by not having them anymore, I finally admitted to my self that he's truly gone.
So now folks who are shocked, horrified and grieving the loss of those kids and teachers are looking, begging for an answer. And in that they are talking about guns. it's their right whether it's rational or not. If it helps folks to deal with this tragedy by talking about gun control, so be it. For the gun guys to panic in fear they'll lose their guns is just silly.
Step back, look at the entire picture and put it in perspective.
And keep up the good work raising your kids 
You and I (and many others) are not much unlike each other, really. I think we both have an understanding of the issue but we both approach it from different angles based on our experiences, education, and perspectives on past, present, and future. Your comment on the "big picture": That is exactly what I am doing.
In regards to the "Greatest Generation", I think you're exactly right. WWII was/is very romanticized even though the people did then what they had to do, just like generations before and after then. Though I dare say we, in general, in the USA are hardly effected by what is going on in 'stan and Iraq today as they were during WWII. I do not see rationing, I do not see blackouts, I do not see people buying war bonds, I do not see scrap collection depots, and I do not see a draft in effect. I surely hope I do not sound disrespectful to those families that have lost loved one during the past decade over seas, I certainly do not mean to be because for sure those families have been impacted for more than the rest of us know.
I've been reading as many of these anti-gun/pro-AWB stories as I can to see what angle people are playing to get their agenda through. It appears that there will be a package deal presented to limit magazines to 10 rounds and prohibit flash suppressors/muzzle devices/bayonet lugs/folding stocks and other cosmetic features on semi-auto rifles (banning the "high powered assault weapon". The architects of the new bill are Sen Feinstein (D-CA), and Sen Schumer (D-NY). She has already stated that the high capacity "clips" and firearms with these cosmetic features on them already out there in circulation will be grandfathered in. This means they will still be available. This means that the ability of a person to obtain a high capacity magazine and a firearm to use that magazine will be available to those who want to obtain it. Also, it means that the function of that rifle to perform will not change for the lack of a flash suppressor, lack of a folding stock, or lack of a bayonet lug. This is the kind of thing that perplexes me, I simply do not understand why people think we need to pass "feel good" laws. These kind of laws are only cosmetic in nature and they serve no function in lessening violence. It means nothing will change.
It is already against the law to murder. It is against the law in CT to have a firearm in a public building. It is already against the law for someone under the age of 18 to purchase/own a rifle and shotgun. It is already against the law for someone under the age of 21 to own a handgun. A rifle must have a barrel length of 16 in. If the rifle barrel is shorter than 16in that it is restricted to having no butt stock (or the own may obtain a $200 tax stamp that allows a "short barreled rifle"). It is already against the law to own a full auto fire arm (unless the owner want to pay 5 digits for the weapon, pay a major tax fee, go through an extensive background check, and waste a lot of high priced ammo). Like I've said before, the baddie is going to do their bad regardless of what tools they need to use. FWIW, I'd rather have an armed baddie walk up to a school with an armed person(s) inside vs having a McViegh bomb be driven up to the front door. At least the targeted people have a chance to respond.
To everyone else: please make sure you check your language and allow Skuzzy-Claus to keep this thread open. If you do not agree with someone please remember that just because someone does not think like you does not mean they are wrong. Do not leave your maturity at the door when you check in to this thread.
