4/20/2008: It’s been nine years since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold decided to honor Hitler’s birthday their way. Nine years since they made a mockery of school safety by barging into Columbine High School with shotguns, slaughtering 12 and wounding 23.
And has anything really changed? Sure, I mean of course things have, but have they changed enough?
The Virgina Tech massacre happened less than a year ago, and several school shootings have come up since, riding its coattails like ticks crawling onto the back of a rat.
But yes, things have changed. Michael Moore’s made his movie. Charleton Heston has died–to the the sadness of some, to the relief of others and to the apathy of most. And Hollywood’s sort of taken its foot off the violence-in-school-is-actually-kind-of-cool pedal it used to press when it made films like “Heathers,” “Pump up the Volume” and “The Basketball Diaries.” Maybe that last part’s a shame; the first two are of my favorite films. But, Hollywood, despite its usual insensitivity and moral bankruptcy has, for whatever it’s worth, done that.
Yet, also of course, I don’t think two of the obvious, more important things have changed. These cataclysmic events and horrifying acts of violence haven’t disappeared in schools, and neither has the shock they produce in most bystanders, people.
How can it be that we’ve had nine years to contemplate the notion that 16- and 17-year olds aren’t always harmless, that schools aren’t safe simply by virtue of being schools and that the initial ripples felt can be tsunamis in disguise?
How can it be that Columbine wasn’t a blip, a nightmare that couldn’t be repeated?
I don’t know what the answer is. Profiling is an invasion, gun control not failsafe. Kids should have the right to be funky, right? People should have the right to defend themselves, right? Yet at what cost?
Obviously, in the past nine years, years that have brought us higher speed internet, iPods, youtube, myspace, facebook, blogging, no one’s really been able to figure out when freedom becomes too much freedom, when mediation becomes totalitarianism. Well, it’s taken a lot more minds in a lot more years *not* to come to any reasonable agreement, so maybe the other blips in these nine years are excusable?
I don’t think so. Classrooms should be safer. Vetting should be more thorough. Teachers with suspicions shouldn’t simply voice them to journals or to mirrors. Students should have no access to firearms. But of course; these are bromides. It’s a deep problem, this one. Clearly these years haven’t been enough.
The things that have transpired since, however, should be concerning our fellow citizens and government just as much as healthcare or the environment do, especially if we don’t want to add other anniversaries to an already heartbreaking list of days that shall live in infamy.
Tags: columbine, dylan klebold, eric harris, virginia tech
Debbie,
As always, I find your postings to be rhetorically-signficant in a probing sort of manner; forcing me to either accept the message at the surface and leave it be, or in this case, forcing me to peel back some of the issues that you’ve touched upon in order to make sense of them. In this case, I’m afraid you’ve touched on a bit of a nerve, so if I may…
At the risk of over-simplifying everything, I believe that personal motivation — which normally encompasses such themes as “success” and “happiness” and “survival”– are the individual’s primary motivating factors. Unfortunately, other motivating factors, such as “revenge” and “resentment” also creep into the equation. However, as a society, we will never be able to free each other’s minds of negative feelings.
But even when analyzing the positives and negatives of an individual’s motivating factors, it becomes clear (at least to me) that when push comes to shove, you can only look out for yourself, which is why, despite the ludicrousy of it all, I propose more students arm themselves (providing they go through the requisite background checks and firearms training).
I can’t help but think that somehow the VA Tech administration and the administrations of every university in this country are doing their students a great injustice by not allowing them to protect themselves, Ultimately, we are the only one’s responsible for our own well-being and survival. If there were only one student in that lecture hall at Virginia Tech who was exercising his constitutional right to carry a weapon (and in Virginia a concealed weapon, which is legal) perhaps he would have been a hero.
We will never be able to hire a security guard for every public space in this country, nor will we ever be able to play the role as collective-psychologist to determine who is about to snap. That being said, the least-worst thing to do is be able to take care of oneself, which for better or for worse, means not discriminating against those who wish to protect themselves and their property with firearms.
I wish to address a few points.
“Yet, also of course, I don’t think two of the obvious, more important things have changed. These cataclysmic events and horrifying acts of violence haven’t disappeared in schools, and neither has the shock they produce in most bystanders, people.”
I come at this from a unique perspective, at least in the circles I keep. I must have been in grade nine at the time, and I remember my first reaction upon hearing that some students had shot up their school was “It’s about time…” I felt like, finally, some kids somewhere were doing what needed to be done. In retrospect, I can’t help but feel like the only thing that prevented me from perpetrating a similar atrocity was my complete in access to firearms. (I give primary credit to my parents, who never kept guns in the house, and peripheral credit to the Government of Canada, whose gun control legislation may have also had an effect, but who knows) However, the degree to which I was forced, and then came to adopt, the identity of “the other”, shaped the non-violent person I became. So in some sense, I’ve always sympathized with the perpetrators. Gun control misses the point entirely, while profiling hints at it, albeit in a decidedly fascistic manner. If we want to prevent atrocities like Columbine and Virginia Tech in the future, we have to look at the motivations, as John Koval states. (I think we may be describing the same phenomena, yet I feel it may be discursively useful to include my interpretation as well, especially as I am to draw very different conclusions)
If we want to prevent such massacres, we have to look at what motivates the perpetrators, and should focus on alleviating those circumstances that encourage such behavior, indeed, encourage the idea that murder then suicide is preferable to the status quo. It’s not about profiling individuals to weed out the ones who are “about to snap”, it’s about creating an environment that prevents the need for profiling entirely.
To John Koval. So let us give guns to all who apply and pass our requisite background checks and firearms training. Yet it seems to be that the perpetrators of these crimes would either a) pass these checks, be given access to firearms, and then trained in their use, or b) the fail these background checks, and have to obtain weapons illegally, just as they do now. Your proposal provides only for the increased possibility of violent crime, and provides no possibility of reducing the status quo of violence. Even still, your conclusions do not follow your premises. First and foremost, “You can’t have gun crimes without guns”, there, I said it. I’m not saying yay! gun control, or that abolish firearms, those discussions are irrelevant. I’m just saying that logically, if nobody had guns, nobody would get killed by guns. However, if you take away all the guns, and everyone is still just as angry and frightened, then you’re still going to end up with murder, it’ll just more closely resemble the Rwandan genocide. We need to encourage a dialog, and an airing of grievances. The fact of the matter is that the problem may be as deep as the fundamentals of our education system (if not our society generally), in which case, we may have to completely rebuild it. Is it not worth it, even if it saves but one life, to at least try?
Alas, you’ve already given away your negativity: “However, as a society, we will never be able to free each other’s minds of negative feelings.”, and why not? There is no reason to assume that we can’t, and why shouldn’t we try? Humanity has accomplished great deeds, and if you look closely, you may find that those past accomplishments may even be far greater than those with which we are currently beset. Collectively, we’ve put a man on the moon, constructed the palace of Versailles, and cured incalculable diseases, so why not set ourselves to the task of alleviating the human condition. Treat the disease that causes human misery, not just the symptoms.
In the end, Debbie’s right, it comes down to convincing our fellow citizens, our “peers”, that the mental well-being of our children is of as much importance as their physical health, or less specific concerns such as the environment, or god forbid, war. Of course, I assume that the hypocrisy of a nation that spends half of it’s GNP on the military, coming together to prevent violence within its borders is obvious to all.
Cheers.
Burnstand,
Yes, I do propose “allowing the option” of obtaining a firearm to “all those who legally qualify.” Why should we not? In far too many instances, the victim is the law-abiding citizen who is unable to protect himself or is not aware how to protect himself.
Increasing gun control or banning handguns outright will accomplish one thing for sure, which is that guns, especially handguns, will only be in the hands of the criminals. The law-abiding citizens who have every right to protect themselves will end up in a compromised position. Making drugs illegal doesn’t retrard your or my access to cocaine and marijuana, nor would making handguns illegal deter a criminal’s access to a handgun. The only loser in such a scenario would be the law-abiding citizen, stripped of his rights to protect himself; powerless against those who wish to do him harm.
Lastly, I am not negative, I am realistic; please do not confuse the two. Human progress is a wonderful occurence, and seeded throughout humankind’s most noble accomplishments have been war, crime and anger. Working towards a more harmonious society is a goal that you and I share; but in the meantime, I am not going to sacrifice my rights nor suspend my conception of reality on the notion that one day the entire world will be “happy.” In the process, I’ll be looking out for myself, which for better or worse, means that I’ll happily be defending the rights of every humanbeing who wishes to protect him/herself.
[...] Columbine’s ninth anniversary five months ago, I wrote a brief post wondering what so many have wondered for years: how best to prevent further school massacres, which [...]