20th Anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre

SharpshooterTom · 20-04-2019 7:09pm #1

On this day 20 years ago In Denver Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold entered their school armed with guns and pipe bombs and murdered 13 people (12 students, 1 teacher). Most of the victims, (10) were killed while hunkering under their desks whilst hiding in the library. The shooters then subsequently killed themselves leaving 15 dead on the day.

The word 'Columbine' seems to be synonymous with mass shootings in the US, and arguably appears to be still the most famous of all the US mass shootings. Of course there have been mass shootings before that but Columbine seems to have marked the beginning of the current endemic of mass shootings which we now see today on a regular basis particularly in schools, with shooters often citing Harris and Klebold as inspiration. Its death toll has been surpassed numerous times but its legacy still lives on with many youngsters (notably one this week who has since killed herself) infatuated by it.

I actually don't recall it being on the news on the time, so I can't remember the reaction here, but the event has undoubtedly had a terrible legacy on US society and seems to have a set off a spate of mass shootings given how glamourised the event was, many now with higher death tolls, not least of which the Orlando Pulse Night Club (50 dead) and Las Vegas Mandalay Bay (59 dead) the most recent examples.

o1s1n · 20-04-2019 7:15pm

It definitely 100% was on the news here, I remember watching it live.

I remember running off to my friends house actually to see if we could nab anything from Eric Harris's site before it was taken down. Found a mirror site with his DOOM wads.

TheValeyard · 20-04-2019 7:26pm

o1s1n wrote: »

It definitely 100% was on the news here, I remember watching it live.

I remember running off to my friends house actually to see if we could nab anything from Eric Harris's site before it was taken down. Found a mirror site with his DOOM wads.

Going by your username pic, this story checks out.

steddyeddy · 20-04-2019 7:30pm

In those 20 years Americans haven't learned a thing. Massacre after massacre, shooting after shooting and they haven't realised they have a problem with guns. Every mass shooting that happens gun sales actually go up. As a country with a mass shooting problem they've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas.

Pauliedragon · 20-04-2019 7:41pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

In those 20 years Americans haven't learned a thing. Massacre after massacre, shooting after shooting and they haven't realised they have a problem with guns. Every mass shooting that happens gun sales actually go up. As a country with a mass shooting problem they've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas.

This is the answer apparantly. This stuff just makes you shake your head and wonder how does an education system in a supposed civilised country get to this point.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/columbines-chilling-legacy-americas-insane-plan-to-stop-school-shooters/news-story/089bd4011e73ddbe4350b7dec2fbe057

MrFresh · 20-04-2019 7:47pm

I read a very interesting description of their motivations. One of them wanted to die and take others with him. The other wanted to kill and didn't care if he died doing it. I think Sandy Hook is the point things should have turned though. once that passed without action there was no saving the country.

How Soon Is Now · 20-04-2019 7:48pm

Twenty years already!! **** sake where is my life going.....

The Satanist · 20-04-2019 7:53pm

They tried to blame it on Marilyn Manson

JupiterKid · 20-04-2019 7:54pm

I remember it like it was just yesterday. 20 years...

...and as another poster opined, America hasn’ t learned a thing since the massacre. The mass shootings get worse and worse. Sandy Hook was where things shculd have turned, but they didn’t.:(:mad:

UpintheAir1 · 20-04-2019 7:54pm

unfortunately true

EDit · 20-04-2019 8:00pm

I read a quite lengthy description of what happened recently and was completely unaware that they had bombs set to go off in the cafeteria and numerous other places. Most of them failed to explode (including, fortunately, the ones in the cafeteria) but if they had exploded the belief is that up to 400 pupils could have died. Up to that point, I just assumed they just had some guns, but it was a pretty full on assault on the school.

Odhinn · 20-04-2019 8:38pm

Interesting article on the myths around it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/19/bullies-black-trench-coats-columbine-shootings-most-dangerous-myths/?utm_term=.ffa2e315bbd8

Manic Moran · 21-04-2019 5:19pm

I am a firm believer in the apparent correlation between the rise of spree shootings and the rise of the news networks ratings wars, with breathless 24-hour coverage of every little detail. I will go so far as to say there is an argument for a causative relationship. Over the last three decades, the number families with guns has gone down, the permissions with guns have been restricted (Example, kids today don't bring their guns to school any more. They used to, with no trouble), but violence has gone up. At least, the perception of violence, and the number of spree shootings. Is the problem really guns?

Pauliedragon wrote: »

This is the answer apparantly. This stuff just makes you shake your head and wonder how does an education system in a supposed civilised country get to this point.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/columbines-chilling-legacy-americas-insane-plan-to-stop-school-shooters/news-story/089bd4011e73ddbe4350b7dec2fbe057

Since all the guns in the country can't be magicked away, even if there were some form of seismic legal change, it is not unreasonable to consider "what if it happens here" as a mitigation plan.

There are several schools of thought on the correct response. Hiding is the most common one. And generally speaking ineffective, but such techniques are less politically controversial so are taught. A school in Indiana recently was in the news, as the Sheriff doing the drill used a pellet gun. Apparently the teachers complained that when they were shot, it hurt. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/us/indiana-active-shooter-pellets/index.html
That's kindof the point. Pain teaches you lessons on what does and does not work. Sometimes violence must be met with violence.

There are also questions on what the drills are doing to children, both traumatically and in terms of time-effectiveness. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/health/school-threats-lockdown-effects/index.html
About ten times as many children are killed in car accidents, but road safety isn't really mentioned at all until you get to driver's ed at 15.. Mandatory school shooter drills are taking up time which probably could be used for training with more likely benefit, such as water safety or choking response. And, frankly, it's terrifying the kids. So we are training kids, at the cost of their emotional well-being, in techniques of questionable value.

Probably an error.

myshirt · 21-04-2019 5:24pm

All this led on to the Cash for Kids scandal then of course.

ToddyDoody · 21-04-2019 6:56pm

From the wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre we get:

"Rationale

The shooting was planned as a terrorist attack that would cause "the most deaths in U.S. history",[24] but the motive has never been ascertained with any degree of certainty. Soon after the massacre, it was thought Harris and Klebold targeted jocks, blacks, and Christians.[1] Both sought to provide answers in the journals and videotapes, but investigators found them lacking. In a letter provided with the May 15 report on the Columbine attack, Sheriff John Stone and Undersheriff John A. Dunaway wrote they "cannot answer the most fundamental question—why?"[51][132]"

The why bit seems never to be answered in these mass shooting incidents. It's always just left open to speculation.

Manic Moran · 21-04-2019 7:12pm

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Twenty years already!! **** sake where is my life going.....

Doing some basic maths...

2019 minus 1989 = 30....

Edit. Well, that's bloody embarrassing. Why did I think it was 1989?

JuanBerrosa · 21-04-2019 7:26pm

o1s1n wrote: »

It definitely 100% was on the news here, I remember watching it live.

I remember running off to my friends house actually to see if we could nab anything from Eric Harris's site before it was taken down. Found a mirror site with his DOOM wads.

wow!
I remember the DEU app, were his WADS decent ?

JuanBerrosa · 21-04-2019 7:27pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Doing some basic maths...

2019 minus 1989 = 30....

2019 - 1999 = 20 even!!

As i type this with one eye squinted shut and face against the screnn,,
]#

Woke Hogan · 21-04-2019 7:44pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Doing some basic maths...

2019 minus 1989 = 30....

Columbine happened in 1999, which was twenty years ago. Not thirty.

completedit · 21-04-2019 9:06pm

I remember it, defo on sky news, didn’t Manchester United play internazionale that night or is my memory mistaken. I remember YouTube about 10 years ago bit longer being full of people obsessed with them, the YouTuber amazing atheist(twat tbf) first videos were about these sympathizers.

steddyeddy · 22-04-2019 12:25pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am a firm believer in the apparent correlation between the rise of spree shootings and the rise of the news networks ratings wars, with breathless 24-hour coverage of every little detail. I will go so far as to say there is an argument for a causative relationship. Over the last three decades, the number families with guns has gone down, the permissions with guns have been restricted (Example, kids today don't bring their guns to school any more. They used to, with no trouble), but violence has gone up. At least, the perception of violence, and the number of spree shootings. Is the problem really guns?

Since all the guns in the country can't be magicked away, even if there were some form of seismic legal change, it is not unreasonable to consider "what if it happens here" as a mitigation plan.

There are several schools of thought on the correct response. Hiding is the most common one. And generally speaking ineffective, but such techniques are less politically controversial so are taught. A school in Indiana recently was in the news, as the Sheriff doing the drill used a pellet gun. Apparently the teachers complained that when they were shot, it hurt. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/us/indiana-active-shooter-pellets/index.html
That's kindof the point. Pain teaches you lessons on what does and does not work. Sometimes violence must be met with violence.

There are also questions on what the drills are doing to children, both traumatically and in terms of time-effectiveness. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/health/school-threats-lockdown-effects/index.html
About ten times as many children are killed in car accidents, but road safety isn't really mentioned at all until you get to driver's ed at 15.. Mandatory school shooter drills are taking up time which probably could be used for training with more likely benefit, such as water safety or choking response. And, frankly, it's terrifying the kids. So we are training kids, at the cost of their emotional well-being, in techniques of questionable value.

Probably an error.

Well we don't need to rely on analogies with cars since we have data. Research clearly shows that homicides are elevated in states with more permissive gun laws. More gun control = less homicide.

With gun violence, especially mass shootings, dominating the news recently, gun control is in the forefront of issues people are concerned about. A new study led by a School of Public Health researcher has found that easier access to concealed firearms is associated with significantly higher rates of handgun-related homicide.

The study, funded the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, was published online October 19, 2017, in the American Journal of Public Health. It suggests that more permissive concealed-carry laws not only do not promote public safety, but are detrimental to it.

“Some have argued that the more armed citizens there are, the lower the firearm homicide rate will be, because the feared or actual presence of armed citizens may deter violent crime,” says lead author Michael Siegel, an SPH professor of community health sciences. “Our study findings suggest that this is not the case.”

Currently, all states allow certain people to carry a concealed handgun, but there are variations in permitting policy. Nine states have “may issue” laws, giving law enforcement officials wide discretion in issuing concealed carry permits. Police chiefs in these states can deny a permit if they deem the applicant to be at risk of violent behavior, even if there is no criminal history. In the 29 “shall issue” states, there is little or no discretion. And in 12 states, no permit is necessary to carry a concealed handgun.

Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting Systems database, the researchers mapped out the relationship between changes in state concealed-carry permitting laws over time and total firearm-related homicide rates between 1991 and 2015. They also examined the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports Supplemental Homicide Reports database to differentiate between handgun and long gun homicides. Previous studies have examined only homicide by all firearms.

The researchers found that “shall issue” laws were associated with a 6.5 percent higher total homicide rate than “may issue” laws, as well as an 8.6 percent higher firearm homicide rate and a 10.6 percent higher handgun homicide rate. The researchers found no impact of shall-issue laws on long gun shootings.

The findings are particularly relevant, the researchers say, because Congress is currently considering national concealed carry reciprocity legislation, which would allow anyone to carry a gun in any state as long as they have a concealed carry permit in the state they live in. The researchers argue that adopting such a policy could lead to significant public health risks.

Roanmore · 22-04-2019 7:33pm

RTE were due to show "Things to do in Denver when you're dead" around that time but had to pull it.

James Brown · 22-04-2019 7:37pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

In those 20 years Americans haven't learned a thing. Massacre after massacre, shooting after shooting and they haven't realised they have a problem with guns. Every mass shooting that happens gun sales actually go up. As a country with a mass shooting problem they've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas.

Nothing to learn. Arms are big business and the NRA and the like won't lose profits over dead school children. If Sandyhook wasn't going to be a tipping point nothing ever will.

Manic Moran · 22-04-2019 7:58pm

Research clearly shows that homicides are elevated in states with more permissive gun laws. More gun control = less homicide.

Nothing wrong with homicide as long as the right people are being killed. It makes sense that homicide numbers would go up, the more people carry guns. That's what they are for, they're not fashion accessories..

What the quote you survey does not mention is the percentage of all those concealed carriers who are murdering people. Unjustified homicides.

Since we're going to throw quotes at each other.

Concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S. A report by The Crime Prevention Research Center notes that it is “very rare for permit holders to violate the law” and compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers and the general population. Police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate. And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.

Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just a seventh of the rate for police officers

Of course, there is much more to the problem than simple quotes.
For example, the States which have the highest gun control also tend to be the states were people are less inclined to be pro-gun in the first to begin with, and don't buy firearms. So do the laws cause the reduction in shootings, or is it just the people inside the State?
Similarly, the amount of crime happening in an area may be the imptetus for people to start clamoring for concealed weapons permits.

And then there's the matter of how many people doing all the shooting in the US are following the law in the first place.

Meanwhile, 5 percent of the counties, which made up nearly half the population, accounted for more than two-thirds of murders in the country, with the highest numbers concentrated in areas around major cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
Those results shouldn’t be entirely surprising, as other factors like poverty and human activity are also concentrated, said David Weisburd, director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.

“All of these issues are factors behind why one place has more of something than the other,” Mr. Weisburd said.

But even within cities, the divide was stark in certain regions. Los Angeles County saw a high number of homicides in 2014, but there were “virtually no murders” in the northwestern part of the county, the study found.

It also found that in Washington, D.C., whose 105 murders put it in the top 20, the vast majority occurred in the eastern part of the city and that the area around the U.S. Capitol was “extremely safe.”

Now, look up the figures for how many people are legally carrying firearms in Chicago or DC or Los Angeles County to be doing all those murders. The answer for private citizens is as near to 'zero' as makes no odds. So that correlation you quote between looser concealed carry laws, and the number of murders in the US is not particularly conclusive of anything.

jeremyj1968 · 22-04-2019 9:25pm

Klebold's mother released a book and did a speaking tour a while back, which was pretty brave of her in fairness. And she did a TED speech around this time as well. It's interesting to listen to her side of the story and particularly the day of the event. It must be some burden to live with all the same. She seems like a lovely person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXlnrFpCu0c

I remember in one of the documentaries one of the parents, who had a run in with Harris, said that he was an "injustice collector". I thought this was a good term to use for him. He seemed to elevate small conflicts of minor issues in to huge long term grudges. I remember hearing the uncle of the Boston Bombers calling his nephews "losers", and I often thought the same could be said of this pair. They couldn't even set the propane tank bombs properly.

And with regard to the shooting, if they had been bullied by jocks and shot some of them (only) then you could say "well okay look they were getting retribution for ills that were committed against them first - what they did was wrong but maybe you could understand why they did it". But one of the first people they shot was a young Christian girl, who did nothing to them. She was just sitting on the ground outside the school when they shot her four times and killed her for no reason. And I try to remember this when I hear Susan Klebold trying to make excuses for her son.

20th Anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre

Comments