Television Violence

Would more realistic violence be helpful or more harmful to viewers?  I'm not talking about a realistic beheading or even realistic damage to a body (see Sons of Anarchy for some of that, or even Breaking Bad, which won a ton of awards).  That's a different territory and I'm not meaning those types of shows.  I think  both have incredible acting and compelling storylines but both actually had me switching the channel due to the intensely graphic violence.  There are also realistic war movies made with an entirely different agenda regarding the violence (see Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Gettysburg, Platoon, etc.).  I'm also not talking about that genre because those are two genres that I believe are marketed to adults and encompass an entirely different purpose/audience.

I'm talking about action movies.franchises that are geared toward a younger audience.  Captain America, Avengers, Terminator, Transformers, Lara Croft, etc. and television shows that are totally escaping my memory right now. What if people were to see that if you are thrown against a wall by a Hulk or android, you likely don't get up without some serious back issues?  Or if you are in a car crash, you would be in shock and probably at the very least have whiplash, so you wouldn't be out running to the next fight.  Bullet wounds don't just leave a mark.  Recovery from surgery is not a fun process and you are not ready to fight a battle the next day.  Being in close proximity to a huge explosion is going to leave you with some aches/pains/cuts.  And my favorite: smashing through windows, glass doors, glass anything, is going to leave you cut very badly and in need of medical attention, but we rarely see even a scratch from any glass characters come in contact with.  Even a badly sprained ankle could prevent you from putting weight on that leg, regardless of the situation.

Obviously, I think we are all aware that adrenaline IS something that can aid a person who is in imminent danger.  But adrenaline does wear off and then you get hit with all the aches and pains and different things that it helped mask in order to save your life.  Would this help the younger generations who have grown up with graphic video game violence where there are killings and explosions and fights with no actual consequences.  I think it is the consensus that too much violence is not a good idea for children.  Even Jason Bourne would need time to recover after pretty much every fight shown in his trilogy.  You don't get slammed into trucks or fall off buildings and get up and get on with your day!  I, for one, would keep my children watching Disney cartoons until they go off to college (okay, I'm exaggerating but there are many things they would not be watching). I wonder, however, if the consequences of small acts of violence were shown if it would help younger people realize that there are consequences to fighting and explosions and guns in schools.  Not video game consequences where you have to restart your shooter game, but consequences like being shot, having surgery, and taking WEEKS until you are ready to even return to moderate activity.  Or the physical therapy that comes after the car crash.  I know violence is a problem in schools and universities across the country and I don't have a solution.  I just have the question.  Would seeing the long term consequences be any type of deterrent to someone who may be wanting to imitate the violence that is so callously depicted in moves, televisions, games, and even games on tablets and phones, constantly all around us.

This may be a question I have, but really, I would love to see way less violence all over.  We have a crazy high crime rate in this country (particularly gun-related crimes) and yet we condone violence on television as long as there is no nudity.  Europe has a lot more nudity and almost no gun violence.  I am not relating the two, I am simply contrasting the differing priorities.  Naked people should be far less scary than an loaded gun... in my opinion.