Colombine shootings

Spacedog

What do you guys think were the primary and secondary causes of the Colombine shootings were?

Kappar

I'm not sure if you've seen the film "Bowling for Colombine" If you haven't i suggest you do.

Spacedog

I have seen Bowling for Colombine, but was wondering what people conculded from the event itself, the film, and any other information about the tragidy, using their own objectivity. Any thoughts?

Zombrex

Originally posted by Spacedog
What do you guys think were the primary and secondary causes of the Colombine shootings were?

Primary - The bullet

Secondary - The gun


Seriously, I don't think something like Colombine can be boiled down to that simple a level .. there were lots of reason for it, lack of gun control, lack of parenting, alienated youth, lack of role models, bullying, unexpressed anger, mental problems etc etc .. you could go on and on

What i got from "Bowling.." was that it wasn't really about Colombine.

It was more about Americas reasons for resisting gun control. The reasons put forward was that everyone is -

A- scared ****-less of crime over there

B - convinced that a gun is the only way to protect yourself when (not if) you are attacked by a gun carrying loony black man.

rmacm

I think things like this are inevitable in a society where guns are so freely available. You know things aren't right when you can purchase Uzis and AK-47s from the backs of vans in some US cities. Bowling for Columbine explained some of the causes of these events. Anyway thats just my 0.2 cents.

Capt'n Midnight

Means, Motive, and Opportunity
To start a fire you need the triangle of fuel, oxidizer and ignition.
Remove one of these and you don't get fires...

You can argure all day about the motives, or how long they had to wait for the opportunity..

But in the US almost everyone has the means to go on a shooting spree. And if you have 250 million people, the strange thing is how few go off the deep end.

People on this side of the Atlantic are not necessarialy less violent but using a knife means getting so close to someone that they could hurt YOU !, which is always a disincentive when trying to plan these things.

It also does not help the entertainment media (inc books) feeds a constant diet of "heros killing people with guns solves problems"

elise

Forget Michaek Moore...he's just another of us capitalists trying to make a quick buck. He chose a topic sure to get the public's attention, and it worked.

Gun control laws serve only to keep guns away from law abiding citizens; if you're a nut, you can always get a gun.

The two who did the killing would have found a way, guns or no. We've all spent time seething over some wrong done to us, maybe even plotting our revenge. That's probably normal, it makes us feel better just to imagine avenging ouselves. What made these two actually go through with it is anyone's guess. Parents? I doubt it. Lots of families have a "black sheep," despite being raised the same way by the same people. Some siblings are well adjusted, others aren't.

In the small town where I grew up, a man stabbed his ex-girlfriend 20-something times with a scissors because she broke up with him. He did this in front of her infant daughter. Why? The family was well-known and liked, his sisters were normal, productive people, he had been your typical popular high school football player.


Sometimes people just loose it.


Oh, and we're not that terrified of crime here in America. It's a statistical reality; larger population = more crime. That's just the way it is everywhere. Our love of guns is related to our history. Doubt there were very many frontiersmen about without some sort of firearm. One had to feed one's family, defend one's property, etc. Heck, we've got an arsenal under our bed! Not loaded of course, we have children. We keep the ammo locked up in a separate box in the garage. (Yeah, if anyone ever breaks into our house, I'll have to beat them with a heavy lamp.) We have guns because my husband hunts. Some are antique, some bought used from friends, and one just because it was to pretty to pass up. We are not crazy, we just like to have guns.

seamus

Originally posted by elise
Gun control laws serve only to keep guns away from law abiding citizens; if you're a nut, you can always get a gun.

Guns are extremely difficult to come by in Ireland. Nuts over here use knives. People can only get their hands on guns if they're well-connected (or lucky enough to stumble upon one). I've no problem with America and it's wanting to have guns, but when teenagers can easily steal guns, and sell them around the corner for $5 a pop, with very little chance of being caught, there's definitely something wrong.

Oh, and we're not that terrified of crime here in America. It's a statistical reality; larger population = more crime. That's just the way it is everywhere. Our love of guns is related to our history. Doubt there were very many frontiersmen about without some sort of firearm.

Statistically more crime yes, but relatively, no. A city of 1 million in the US will have the same amount of crime as Dublin, just like a town of 50,000 will have as much crime as say, Mullingar.
The love of guns has nothing to do with your history. Before Samuel Colt came along, only the gentry (mostly British) could afford a firearm. Guns cost more than most people's annual salary. The whole point of the wagon trains, and the massive groups wandering across the plains was, safety in numbers. If each family had it's own gun, there would be no need for group protection.

bonkey

Originally posted by elise
Sometimes people just loose it.

Agreed, but there must be a reason why people lose it in different ways in different nations/cultures.

The US isn't the only nation with high gun ownership, but it does have an exceptionally high incidence of gun-related crime.

jc

Capt'n Midnight

RE:It's a statistical reality; larger population = more crime
Only if you use statistics in the same way they do on the weakest link - incorrectly.
Many American cities of 1.5 million or over have had annual murder rates during the '80's that have exceded the numbers of murders per decade in Northern Ireland ...

In Switzerland most homes used to have guns because most males were reservists.

But compare Canada or even just compare Seattle and Vancouver ... You can argue till the cows come home as to whether it's people or guns. Fact is it's people WITH guns that kill others. If you can't remove the people, remove the guns.

In Korea and Vietnam about 50,000 US troups were killed over a period of several years - how many gun related deaths (accidents & murders & suicides etc.) are there in the US each year ??

As Sledge Hammer said "Guns don't kill people, bullets do."

Capt'n Midnight

On a slightly different note:
If there is a gun in the house

It's most likely to be stolen !
Next most likely occurance is an accidental shooting or suicide of a member of the household.
Least likely occurance - the house holder will be able to use the gun to confront an armed intruder. never mind that the intruder might be a better shot than the house holder, the three strikes rule means that there is very difference for the intruder in between doing life for shooting back in self defence and just being there.

Guns are like security cameras - they reduce crime in an area by forcing it elsewhere...

Note: US police officers are three times more likely to commit suicide than to be shot dead by crims..

I'll repeat the point about Knifes - even a complete nut job will think twice before getting up close to someone who could fight back.

Does anyone remember an incident where someone went trigger happy at work, but when he let one of his mates go , the mate more or less told him to "go get them.." - a very different mentality

bug

young people with access to guns.

If I had of had access to a gun when I was in school I dunno what could have happened...

When your at school going through pubesent hell..consequences aren't always in your mind..because you cant see past school..

I was a really sensitive child/teenager and I can still remember the tourmoil in my head at that time... I coped and got through because I had a really understanding family. I was bullied in primary school and if I had of had a gun I may have used it..but I didn't so I used my fists...

these two probably felt osterised from the MTV generation and they found an ally in each other...I'd say they were intelligent enough and the consequences amybe only hit them after the fact..

Parents really should keep a very very close eye on their pre-pubescent teenagers, and to a degree treat them with the same close observation you would someone who has a serious hormone imbalance...Im not too old to remember what it was like..

bonkey

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
In Switzerland most homes used to have guns because most males were reservists.

Used to? What makes you think anything has changed?

(Incidentally, unless I'm very much mistaken, military-issue weaponry has only been known to be used twice in connection with crime in Switzerland in the past decade.)

If you can't remove the people, remove the guns.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. Removing guns may be the solution, but trying to find why nations with comparable gun-possession levels have vastly differing criminal-gun-usage statistics (total or per capita, whichever way you want to argue makes more "sense") should be a first step.

Of course, removing (or attempting to remove) illegal gun ownership/trafficking, and ensuring that reasonable safeguards are in place for weapons-acquisition is a step that should be taken regardless of what your stance may be on the entire issue of the problem and how to solve it.

Getting back on topic....I think asking for primary and secondary causes of Columbine is overly smiplistic - at least if you expect to reduce it to one of each.

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
But compare Canada or even just compare Seattle and Vancouver ... You can argue till the cows come home as to whether it's people or guns. Fact is it's people WITH guns that kill others. If you can't remove the people, remove the guns.

In Korea and Vietnam about 50,000 US troups were killed over a period of several years - how many gun related deaths (accidents & murders & suicides etc.) are there in the US each year ??

As Sledge Hammer said "Guns don't kill people, bullets do."

In the US, there are 55.000 people who die because of car accident deaths. Some by stupidity, but most by DUI (driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol). By your logic, if we cannot remove the people from drinking, then should we either ban alcohol or the car. Wrong conclusion

The weapon of choice is not as significant as the individual who makes the choice. Laws in the US have to balance a constitutional right with that of protecting the public. Technically, criminals with violent records are not allowed to have guns. However, there are many shannigans who would sell their own mother for a buck. Currently, a minor cannot own a gun, nor can someone who is mentally ill or retarded. The biggest problem is the lack of respect for the gun. When I was growing up, I had to first learn how to clean the gun properly before I learned how to shoot it. And when I learned how to shoot it, I learned all the safety techiques with that particular weapon. Finally, I learned how to be an expert marksman. I still hold that today.

Capt'n Midnight

US citizens do not have a constitiutional right to carry guns.

If they are members of the malitia (not a militia) do they have the right to "bare arms"
It does not say what type of arms are allowed (pikes?) or even if it only means rolling up your sleves.

Anyway the ammendment can be removed..


Re: respect for the gun - the mass media have a lot to answer for. But it's a cultural thing. I remember reading a copy of "guns & ammo" and there was an article about ordnance gelatine. (This is like jelly before you add it to water) The idea is to represent the physical properties of flesh and to show how far bullets from handguns can penetrate into it. Kinda sick when you are talking about using them on humans..

In the meantime the US should ban
a) concelable weapons - over here 18" barrel is minimum
b) NATO round - this allows weapons to be used by children especially in wars in the third world
c) any and all non-metalic weapons

---

Re drink driving - Several million people get killed each year by cars - on this side of the atlantic it's the biggest preventable killer in the 15-40 age group (In the US guns are the biggest killer amongst black males in that group)

SUV's are no safer for the occupant than other cars in a similar price range - but are six times more deadly to other road users...
So they should require a special license
Alcohol limits should be reduced
If you are a driver in a fatal car accident then IMHO there should be a mandatory manslaughter charge if you have broken any driving laws or have had a history of doing so..

---

Back in cyprus after the war the British army declared martial law - anyone caught with a gun was hanged.

PS. wasn't sure if the Swiss disarmed after the wall fell.

seamus

Originally posted by Geromino
In the US, there are 55.000 people who die because of car accident deaths. Some by stupidity, but most by DUI (driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol). By your logic, if we cannot remove the people from drinking, then should we either ban alcohol or the car. Wrong conclusion

Your logic is slightly flawed. Cars and alcohol aren't weapons, and were not designed as such. Cars get you around the place. Alcohol gets you drunk, a fine human tradition. As with all things, sometimes things go wrong, accidents occur. Cars and alcohol weren't designed with the death in mind, but sometimes it happens.

Guns however have one sole purpose. To shoot things. When someone gets shot by a gun, it's never an accident or an unfortunate circumstance, that's what the gun was designed to do. There's no point in saying X amount of people are killed in RTA's or by electric shock or by falling out of bed, since their death was an unintentional side-effect of an otherwise useful tool. Death is never a side-effect of a gunshot. It's the intended effect. Guns are a 'useful tool' in a bare minimum of contexts (ie war).

But of course education and control is the key. Gun education is sparse in the US, and as I've said, anyone can buy a gun on the corner of a street. Similarly with DUIs, the US method of dealing with drink-drive offenders is farcical, and has no real impact. I wouldn't ask anyone to ban anything, rather to educate and control.

Geromino

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
US citizens do not have a constitiutional right to carry guns.

If they are members of the malitia (not a militia) do they have the right to "bare arms"
It does not say what type of arms are allowed (pikes?) or even if it only means rolling up your sleves.

Anyway the ammendment can be removed.

I have no idea where you get the idea that there is no constitutional right carry guns But here is 2nd Admendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The admendment gives two distinct impressions: one the right of the state to maintain a militia and two the right to bear arms (guns, knives, etc.) Add to the fact, the Constitution, Article I, section 10 gives somewhat specific authority for Congress, the legislative branch can function. This is another debate on to what state rights are and what federal rights are.

Re: respect for the gun - the mass media have a lot to answer for. But it's a cultural thing. I remember reading a copy of "guns & ammo" and there was an article about ordnance gelatine. (This is like jelly before you add it to water) The idea is to represent the physical properties of flesh and to show how far bullets from handguns can penetrate into it. Kinda sick when you are talking about using them on humans..

In the meantime the US should ban
a) concelable weapons - over here 18" barrel is minimum
b) NATO round - this allows weapons to be used by children especially in wars in the third world
c) any and all non-metalic weapons

Concealed handguns is only a recent thing and the proceedure is quite extensive. First there is a background check and stating the reason for applying. Second you have to take a special class, pass the class: demostrate the ability to apply what you have learned in real situations. One out of five applicants pass all requirements.

The article from Guns and Ammo I believe is mere stating what happens after impact. It was designed primarily as a tool to show the power of a weapon, not to exploit the situation.

Geromino

Originally posted by seamus
Your logic is slightly flawed. Cars and alcohol aren't weapons, and were not designed as such. Cars get you around the place. Alcohol gets you drunk, a fine human tradition. As with all things, sometimes things go wrong, accidents occur. Cars and alcohol weren't designed with the death in mind, but sometimes it happens.

Not necessarily if you take a look at the original pretense of "if you cannot remove the people, you remove the gun." However, anything can be made into a weapon.

Guns however have one sole purpose. To shoot things. When someone gets shot by a gun, it's never an accident or an unfortunate circumstance, that's what the gun was designed to do. There's no point in saying X amount of people are killed in RTA's or by electric shock or by falling out of bed, since their death was an unintentional side-effect of an otherwise useful tool. Death is never a side-effect of a gunshot. It's the intended effect. Guns are a 'useful tool' in a bare minimum of contexts (ie war).

It is an accident depending on the circumstances involved. If someone got stabbed, would you say it is an accident or was it designed to do. It is not simply using or not using an item of its intended purpose, it is the circumstances in which you use said item. I could use a half ton truck and run full speed into a home. The desired effect would be death and carnage, not only me but my intended victim. However, if I was drunk and did the same thing, then it could be construed as an accident given the circumstances. In one scenario, I made the truck into a weapon because of my intended purpose. In the second scenario, I had the misfortune of driving drunk and creating carnage and estruction. Either way, death occured. The difference is its intended purpose, not the item to use for that purpose.

But of course education and control is the key. Gun education is sparse in the US, and as I've said, anyone can buy a gun on the corner of a street. Similarly with DUIs, the US method of dealing with drink-drive offenders is farcical, and has no real impact. I wouldn't ask anyone to ban anything, rather to educate and control.

Education is the real key and I wish the government would promote such actions.

Capt'n Midnight

RE: anything can be made into a weapon.
a) Impulse killers don't make weapons.
b) Name anything that can be made into a weapon that can be
- used by an unskilled person to kill at a distance further than a stone's throw away..
- that can be used to hold back a room full of people after you start killing them..

Guns allow people to kill at a distance - much easier to treat them as "things" rather than humans when they are far away.

Yes the Ammendent allows the milita to bare arms (roll your sleves and your arms will be bare) but this would only apply to citizens in the militia. So either you are in the National Guard or other State controlled (= well regulated ) militia or you have no constitiutional right to carry weapons.

There is a simple solution to weapons. Draft the Milita.
If you are not in the milita then you are not allowed posses weapons, if you have weapons then the state has the right to disarm you if you refuse the call up. But what to do with those you are drafted - it's off to Iraq me bucko, or they'd be sent to a different state to help in the disarming...

Handguns - conceled or otherwise are illegal here - to hold a gun here you must have hunting rights on a specific piece of land, and an approved gun cabinet bolted to the wall

As for showing the power of weapons - I could understand it if they used telephone directories - magnum 45 "punches from A to Z" but using a system designed to mimic the human body is literly too close to the bone.

Geromino

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
RE: anything can be made into a weapon.
a) Impulse killers don't make weapons.
b) Name anything that can be made into a weapon that can be
- used by an unskilled person to kill at a distance further than a stone's throw away..
- that can be used to hold back a room full of people after you start killing them..

Guns allow people to kill at a distance - much easier to treat them as "things" rather than humans when they are far away.

Distance is irrelevant when it comes to making a weapon. If that was the case, swords, knives, darts, crossbows, traditional bows, etc., would then not be considered a weapon according to your presumption. This is hardly the case. A car packed with ammonium nitrate can be made as a weapon with a simple triggering device. Using a baseball bat to crush some skull makes the baseball bat the weapon. It is how the device is used.

Yes the Ammendent allows the milita to bare arms (roll your sleves and your arms will be bare) but this would only apply to citizens in the militia. So either you are in the National Guard or other State controlled (= well regulated ) militia or you have no constitiutional right to carry weapons.

There is a simple solution to weapons. Draft the Milita.
If you are not in the milita then you are not allowed posses weapons, if you have weapons then the state has the right to disarm you if you refuse the call up. But what to do with those you are drafted - it's off to Iraq me bucko, or they'd be sent to a different state to help in the disarming...

If you want, I can provide specific case Constitutional law to see how the courts interpret the 2nd admendment. But in summary, the federal courts, including the Supreme Court have allowed ownership of guns with certain restrictions among the various states. Each state has the authority to make law of who can own or not own a firearm. What the Courts have not said is what you are proposing. That is pure myth. The key is to finding balance with freedom to own arms and with reasonable regulations.

Handguns - conceled or otherwise are illegal here - to hold a gun here you must have hunting rights on a specific piece of land, and an approved gun cabinet bolted to the wall

As for showing the power of weapons - I could understand it if they used telephone directories - magnum 45 "punches from A to Z" but using a system designed to mimic the human body is literly too close to the bone.

I am not talking about Ireland, or England or Germany or Ozzieworld. I am talking about the United States and its laws only. Telephone directories do not show the who picture about a bullet, specific type of bullet penetrating the torso. I remember taking driver education where they showed films about drunk drivers, the shape of vehicles, facts about how fast the impact was, etc. Realistic enactments is the best method of education for owning a weapon. It is not a toy, it is a tool

Zaphod B

No. It's a purpose-built weapon, the sole reason for it's invention is to kill. I'm not suggesting banning it though; I'll get round to that issue.

I can't agree with a significant bit of what Cap said but as for his point about the gelatine, aye, it's for education. Education of the "Cool, look what I can do with this sh1t!" kind. Educating you to make a choice between say a plain old 9mm and a .44. Because, after all, you don't just want to kill the f*cker who came in your house, you want to blow his head clean off. Maybe I'm being cynical. In fact you're right, obviously your average home gun-owner needs to know which gun has better penetration, because your average armed intruder is equipped with body armor... :rolleyes: Maybe you don't see guns as a toy, in which case I respect that, but some of your countrymen do. Which is where I finally come round to agreeing with you; education is needed - actual education, with a bit of emphasis on responsibilities as well as rights, consequences of using your gun as well as how to use it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Each state has the authority to make law of who can own or not own a firearm.

Then the right to bear arms cannot be constituitionally enshrined, surely, as these laws would be unconstitutional?

I know its an off-topic point, but I cannot see hwo something can be a constitutional right, and also something that "local" government can supercede.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Then the right to bear arms cannot be constituitionally enshrined, surely, as these laws would be unconstitutional?

I know its an off-topic point, but I cannot see hwo something can be a constitutional right, and also something that "local" government can supercede.

jc

I think it's more the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that is the issue. i.e. what does 'Bare Arms' mean? What can be constituted as a weapon?

Sparks

Zaphod B:
No. It's a purpose-built weapon, the sole reason for it's invention is to kill. I'm not suggesting banning it though; I'll get round to that issue.

I dislike it when people with little knowlege of firearms make statements like that.
My rifle, zaphod, has a lethal range of up to a mile. But as a weapon, it's next to useless. It's designed to do one thing well - to put a .22 cal round through an ISSF paper target at 50 metres from prone, kneeling and standing positions in an olympic games competition. As a weapon, it is too heavy, too akward, too expensive and not rugged enough to be used as anything other than a rather expensive pointy metal club. It can't even be used with any huge degree of accuracy without the double canvas jacket and slings and other odds and ends that go with the sport.





For those wondering, I was the Public Relations Officer for the National Target Shooting Assoication of Ireland for a year and a bit (I'm writing up the PhD right now, hence the past tense, I'll be back into it again after I finish writing up). I was also on the national target shooting squad for a few years, I've won the 25yd prone nationals, I've been shooting for a decade now, and owned my own rifles for two years. So I do have some inkling of what I'm talking about. It's not quite as simple as "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but it's damn close. And while you can easily say that it's just a matter of banning guns and then even the nuts won't be able to get them, the fact is that the nuts can and do get them, even in Ireland - observe abbeylara for the most recent high-profile case, though it's not alone - and the fault tends to lie with the police rather than some lack of gun control law. Observe Dunblane and Hungerford to see what I mean - in both cases, a mentally unstable man was given licences for firearms by the police. In Dunblane, this was done over the specific recommendations of every gun club in the area, all of whom specifically denied Hamilton membership because they thought he was unstable.
So gun control law, on it's own, simply does not work. Perhaps if it was written and enforced by people that knew one end of a rifle from the other, it might actually have a small chance, but it isn't and it doesn't. For example, my rifle licences had typos on them when I got them first. One was listed as the wrong calibre (.220 instead of .22 - there is a difference) and one was listed with the wrong serial number (the preceding zero in the number does have significance). These are small piddling errors, but because they're so obvious, they point to the lack of experienced people in the system. If the same level of inexperience was shown in motor licencing or any other area of law enforcement or law creation, there would be a public uproar about it.

As to the initial question, the answer is more simple than anyone here seems to be able to grasp. The kids who did the shooting were bullied at school, quite heavily. They lived in a nation that has little to no tradition of social conformity, one that seems to the neophyte observer to worship violence and "maverickism". And they had access to firearms and not much training with them.
The surprising thing about columbine is not that it happened - the surprising things are that:
a) it doesn't happen more often, given that bullying is not seen as a serious problem that has to be addressed as seriously as drugtaking in schools,
b) that those looking at the shooting cannot see that cracking down on anyone that behaved, dressed, or thought differently afterwards was not the best choice of action,
c) that those who were responsible for the initial bullying never received any blame for triggering the incident,
d) that Moore's film, while useful for pointing out the more insane points of the "gun culture" in the US, was not slated for it's many inaccuracies and outright use of "artistic licence".

Capt'n Midnight

.22 - favored weapon of many assasins.
While the bullet can penetrate the skull it can't come out the other side - too light - so it bounces around making mush of the brain. With the bonus that the victim is still recognisable so you get paid.

Sparks

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
.22 - favored weapon of many assasins.
While the bullet can penetrate the skull it can't come out the other side - too light - so it bounces around making mush of the brain. With the bonus that the victim is still recognisable so you get paid.

Oh for the love of ...

Okay folks, here's the deal. Someone shoots you in the head. Whether or not the bullet comes out the far side has nothing to do with calibre and everything to do with it's kinetic energy when it strikes your skull. You could be shot with a round from an M-16 and have it remain inside your skull, so long as you were far away enough that the round had less than the threshold amount of kinetic energy when it hits.

In other words, Stallone is not an expert on guns....

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Then the right to bear arms cannot be constituitionally enshrined, surely, as these laws would be unconstitutional?

I know its an off-topic point, but I cannot see hwo something can be a constitutional right, and also something that "local" government can supercede.

jc

Bonkey,
Actually it is both under federalism. The state can make laws to allow reasonable restrictions within that state, hence "who has the right to bear arms" argument. However, the Federal government can get involved through the clause "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution. But then again, you have exceptions and the exceptions to the exceptions. Congress has the nasty ability to try to predict every little circumstance known to man when it comes to making federal laws, but leave common sense out the window.

Geromino

Originally posted by Sparks
As to the initial question, the answer is more simple than anyone here seems to be able to grasp. The kids who did the shooting were bullied at school, quite heavily. They lived in a nation that has little to no tradition of social conformity, one that seems to the neophyte observer to worship violence and "maverickism". And they had access to firearms and not much training with them.
The surprising thing about columbine is not that it happened - the surprising things are that:
a) it doesn't happen more often, given that bullying is not seen as a serious problem that has to be addressed as seriously as drugtaking in schools,
b) that those looking at the shooting cannot see that cracking down on anyone that behaved, dressed, or thought differently afterwards was not the best choice of action,
c) that those who were responsible for the initial bullying never received any blame for triggering the incident,
d) that Moore's film, while useful for pointing out the more insane points of the "gun culture" in the US, was not slated for it's many inaccuracies and outright use of "artistic licence".

I would disagree with you about worshipping violence and "mavierickism." More people I know worship high school, college, or even professional football than violence itself. You make the statement that they were bullyied. They were loners primarily and belonged to a ckick at school known at the "trenchcoat mob." That name came from them, not the high school students attending class with them. They were teased because they were different. But I have seen this in China, Japan, Indonesia, and other parts of the world. In most cases these countries have strict discipline guidelines that extremely limit the teasing, but not in the USA. The discipline guidelines went out the window in the 80's where corporat punishment was outlawed and no adverse or severe disciplinary actions are administeried (being expelled and sent to reform school is not adverse action). In high school, it is all about being popular, not academics. Some schools thrive on academics, but these are either the magnet public schools or the private schools.

As for the answer, no one knows, but we could blame the music they listened to (Marilyn Manson, etc), we could blame the PC or handheld gaming industry, we could blame the parents, we could blame God, we could blame the martians. But none of them had any direct controlling influence on what they did. It was their choice and theirs alone. Only they can tell us the answer, We could speculate on the reasons why, but we cannot definitely put a blame on one singe particular aspect of culture/society.

swiss

The two main issues that arose as a result of the columbine shootings, I feel, are control and regulation of dangerous weaponry, and the rather more humanitarian issue of how a society deals with the marginalised or disturbed in a society.

We know that something pushed those boys over the edge, although speculation is rife about what those causes might have been. Although we will probably never really know why they did what they did, I would say their main motivation was anger and a desire to express that anger and exact revenge against those who they felt had hurt or alienated them.

We also know that they could not have caused nearly as much damage as they did if they did not have easy access to various kinds of lethal weaponary such as pistols, a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun, a sawed-off pump-action shotgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic rifle, not to mention the home made explosives and pipe bombs. Therefore the control of these weapons became a great concern for those who wished to avoid another tragedy such as this.

In both cases, education and understanding is the key, both in trying to sympathise with and attempt to reintegrate the marginalised back into a society, and also trying to provide people with a basic discipline and respect for the power of these weapons.

Zaphod B

Originally posted by Sparks
I dislike it when people with little knowlege of firearms make statements like that.
My rifle, zaphod, has a lethal range of up to a mile. But as a weapon, it's next to useless.

Oh for the love of (enter your deity of choice), do cop on. Yes, I'm clearly such an ignorant fvck-up that I've never heard of a 22 before :rolleyes:
THE gun was invented to kill. Maybe yours was invented to shoot through paper targets. The first firearm invented was not; it was designed to kill. So were the rest of them for a long time to come until some rather friendlier people saw a potential use for sport. If you want to shoot at paper targets with your 22 go ahead; I'm not likely to be killed by a 22 unless I'm shot repeatedly in the head from point blank range having pissed off some serious organised crime figures. The issues that were discussed were Columbine (no 22 rifles used) and the Right To Bear Arms (how many 22s were being used to shoot paper targets when that was written into the Constitution?)

I just made a valid point that guns are not toys and people need to take owning them more seriously (say not letting their kids run around with them). That applies to 22s too; sure you might not kill anyone with a 22 but you might well lobotomize them... if you even read through my post you'd see that I didn't want to ban your precious guns, so how about you lay off the condescension?

Sparks

Oh for the love of (enter your deity of choice), do cop on. Yes, I'm clearly such an ignorant fvck-up that I've never heard of a 22 before

Well, that's wonderful, but it doesn't explain how you then come out with the "guns are only designed to kill people" line. The simple fact is that they're not. Some guns are, it's certainly true - but not all, not by a very large margin. Some guns are designed for hunting animals for food and serve a necessary (and in some cases, legally mandatory) role. Some are for recreation, some for varmint control.
It's not so simple as "guns are bad", and the recent successes (even in our backward little banana republic) with using rifles to rehabilitate stroke victims show that off quite well.

I'm not likely to be killed by a 22 unless I'm shot repeatedly in the head from point blank range having pissed off some serious organised crime figures.

I believe the phrase is "do cop on"?
.22 rifles like mine aren't designed to kill you - but they'll do the job all the same if you're not careful, in precisely the same way that a car, or a nailgun, or a circular saw or any other useful tool will.

the Right To Bear Arms (how many 22s were being used to shoot paper targets when that was written into the Constitution?)

Precious few. They were using fullbore rifles instead.
For our rifle club, I did some historical digging a few years ago and turned up a letter written in the 1800s showing that target shooting with fullbores was already well-established in Ireland, let alone larger countries. And the precurser to target shooting, target archery, was a legal obligation in the UK back for a few hundred years prior to that.

Target shooting, you see, is not new.

if you even read through my post you'd see that I didn't want to ban your precious guns, so how about you lay off the condescension?

Condescending? Nope. Defensive? Yes. Defensive without good reason? Not a hope in hell, and if you knew anything about the history of gun control in this country or others, you'd know why I'm defensive and why I take every opportunity to try to lay out what the actual facts are in this area.