Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the killers from Columbine High School, were not members of a “trenchcoat mafia.” They did not listen to goth-rocker Marilyn Manson. They were not bullied by the popular jocks. They were not outcasts. They were not known racists or anti-Semites. They did not ask classmate Cassie Bernall if she believed in God, and then kill her, execution-style, when she answered yes. Yet all those myths live on.
Harris and Klebold, we now know, had an active social life and took advanced classes. Harris was adored by adults; he was a phony who would charm his friends’ parents and then eviscerate them on his webpage. Klebold was from a loving family who were doing everything to try to give confidence to a boy who viewed his life as a failure. And, had the two lived, they would have been disappointed by going down in history as vicious murderers: in their minds, they were martyrs.
Comments
Eight children die each day in the US from gun violence. We should not be focussing on the "story" of each one but the gun policy revisions that will make our society safer. Ridding the country of high volume automatic weapons is a start. And yes, I want to take those guns away from everyone. And no, you as an individual citizen do not have the right to own a weapon that could obiterate a neighborhood in minutes.
"high volume automatic weapons". The nutjob did not use an "automatic" weapon. It was a semi automatic, one shot for each trigger pull. The same way a rifle that is used for deer hunting works. By the way, the cartridges used for deer hunting are typically way more devastating than .223. I only make this point because a nutjob intent on killing entire neighborhoods would still be able to obtain LOTS of five round magazines, exchange them rapidly and wreak havoc. With much more powerful ammunition.
That said, I agree that this "need" for 20, 30+ round magazines is RIDICULOUS. I do not even know why someone "needs" a 10 round magazine.
Frankly, I don't think limiting the size of magazines is going to help a whole lot with this problem. This notion that someone will be able to stop a shooter while he changes a ten or five round magazine is foolish. If it were true, then shooters would be stopped when they changed their 20 or 30 round magazine.
@History: Jared Loughner used a Glock with a 31-round magazine. He was rushed while changing magazines and thus his attack stopped. Someone more highly skilled might have changed magazines more effectively and kept shooting. On the other hand, if he only had access to a 10-round magazine fewer people might have been shot.
Eight children per day dead from gun violence - that statistic sure hits home and sure is inaccurate. It is only true if you count those aged 17 - 22 as " children " - in reality, at the lower end they are adolescents and at the upper range - young adults. I am patiently waiting for the oped discussing the slaughter of American children in Afghanistan - you remember - that endless war, the next time a casket is unloaded at Dover Delaware, please refer to that 19 year old soldier as a " child ".
"What we do know now is basic and undeniable. We know that rampage murderers use high-volume, rapid-firing guns. "
A year from now:
"What we do know now is basic and undeniable. We know that rampage murderers use:
semi automatic pistols,
shotguns,
rifles,
pipe bombs"
And after that it will be machetes, axes, hatchets, cleavers, etc.
But, the authors point is well taken, there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. I like the term: "High Volume Semi Automatic Weapon".
Not "Ban it because it LOOKS like a military weapon"
Not "Ban it because it looks evil and killy"
Not "Ban it because it has a pistol grip"
Not "Ban it because the stock can be adjusted by 2 inches"
Or any of the other stupid, silly criteria that is created by folks who know diddly about how a rifle actually works.
Then there is this HUGE problem, there are millions of those High Volume Semi Automatic rifles out there, with hi capacity magazines to match. In fact, ever since our illustrious leader announced his intentions, hi capacity magazines have been flying off the shelves. It seems that most people can agree on a 10 round limit (I personally think that is a little much). Make them illegal, really stiff fine for owning one, no criminalization, no jail time. A possible "buy back" for a limited time.
Excellent points. I would counter that it would be better to make it easier to compel a psychiatric evaluation and/or medication as necessary for those who do exhibit potentially dangerous behaviours or ideations. All too often behaviour that is 'off' is dismissed or not followed up on. Locking all such individuals away is unlikely to be necessary or merited, but if you can even prevent one mass killing by properly identifying and treating a person it is worth it. Eric Harris, Jared Loughner, and James Holmes all exhibited behaviours alarming enough to be recognized as needing intervention, but nothing was done.
This comment has been removed.
For those of you who THINK that banning guns is the answer, here is something for you to consider as you listen to outcry about banning guns and making America safe.
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed.
The occurences above did not get air time or any space in opinion columns, did they?
Two clarifications. In Pearl, Mr. Myrick rammed his car into Woodham's, disabling it, as he was intending to drive to the junior high and continue his rampage. Myrick then held the shooter at bay. He is a hero, and his weapon proved useful, but his car was as much an implement of crime prevention as his pistol. At Appalachian Law the armed students were all off-duty cops; it's semantics, but they weren't really civilians, so to speak. In both of those cases the criminals were not actively shooting anyone at the time. You might also have mentioned a church service in Aurora CO where a gunman shot a woman but was shot by an off-duty police officer. It seems to me allowing off-duty cops to carry is more valuable than arming just anyone. The shooting in Arkansas essentially was a sniper attack from outside shooting into a playground. You bring up some good points, but just how do you accomplish armed patrols of every public setting? How do you pay for that? Police officers are not required to buy their own service handguns, for example. Are you going to donate the funds to train and arm schoolteachers? Wouldn't requiring them to do that on their own violate the Commerce Clause in the Constitution?
This comment has been removed.
In other civilized countries, all guns are illegal. Why should they be allowed or necessary in the U.S.!! Or maybe the U.S. is not that civilized...
Amen, sister! Cyphers, all of them.
No one has said anything about banning all guns. Not once not ever. Certain members of the public have but no politicians that I know of have advocated banning every gun. What is being suggested is the banning of the same weapons that I carried in war time, no civilian needs those weapons and manufacturers need not sell them to the public. I am so tired of one: listening and watching the media put these wacked "doomsday preppers" out in public view. These folks need psychiatric help. "Jesue is coming so I gotta get my weapons." "It's the end of the world so I want to be the last man standing". Good grief.
Two: I'm tire of target shooters who have never faced live fire going on and on about "I'd do this or I'd do that". In all likelihood what you'd do is what most folks do the first time, panic. And at close range, die.
Third, unless you're one sick dude you never forget when you kill someone, whether for good reason or not. Most of the comments I hear on this subject are nothing but conjecture and foolishness and simply show the lack of real understanding Americans have regarding the infliction of death on another person. Most of it sounds like the talk of children and psychotics.
"Historyisjustthat". By the way I can empty a thirty round clip in a semi-automatic in about 10 to 15 seconds. Any trained soldier can get off 3-4 rounds per second. An untrained civilian perhaps a few less but not much. Tapped clips can indeed be changed at a rapid rate, but if you have only five rounds per clip, even three clips taped together will slow your fire rate by a substantial margin. Just saying.
I've reflected on this article throughout the day. We are an inquisitive species, and in asking why do these things happen we will inevitably have a thirst for detail. That rumor is often mistaken for fact has been known for thousands of years. That simply puts the obligation on journalists and historians to focus on fact. Adam Lankford wrote a telling article in the New York Times that presages his book analyzing the similarities between mass murderers across cultures, in particular the similarities in the psychological profiles of suicide bombers and rampage shooters. Other sources, when focusing on known facts, have noted that behaviour and personality changes consisted with various forms of psychosis were observed in many of the shooters. Again, it will be important to differentiate rumor from fact. Adam Lanza, for example, was reported to have Asberger's Syndrome; however, the only evidence is that his parents made that claim to a mediator during their divorce. Until a medical diagnosis is produced that has to be kept in the realm of rumor. In the meantime, how many will develop unfounded fears of autistic people?