A gun-shootin' blast from the past

The following letter dropped into my mailbox today:

A long time back I read a great article on this site, I believe it was called "Finger pointing in Littleton," about how people were trying to blame everything from video games to rock music to the goth culture for school shootings. With the recent VA Tech tragedy, these asshats are coming out of the woodwork again, and I would like to get a link to that article in order to pass it on for others to read. I did a quick scan of the site, but in the limited time I had I couldn't find it.

--Scott B.

Good memory, Scott! The reason you didn't find it on the site is because it didn't make the transition from the original site to our new CMS-driven one. But you're right, this is a good time to revisit the subject of morons exploiting a tragedy to promote their own moronic agendas (I'm looking at you, Jack Thompson).

Here, then, is a (very) longish essay from the past; just change a few key words, and it would apply all-too-well to today:

Finger-Pointing in Littleton

May 6, 1999
Copyright 1999, Robert A. Jung

On April 20, 1999, thirteen people were killed and more than two dozen were wounded when gunmen dressed in black overcoats and masks opened fire inside Columbine High School in Littleton. Armed with sawed-off shotguns, automatic weapons, and homemade bombs, the two held off police and SWAT units for over four hours before killing themselves. The gunmen were eventually identified as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, seniors at Columbine and members of a student clique called the "Trench Coat Mafia." The incident has been called one of the deadliest school shootings in history.

When I first heard the news reports about the shooting, my immediate reaction was to predict the media's response -- that the blame for the massacre would be leveled at any and all aspects of pop culture that Harris and Klebold had an interest in.

Needless to say, I was accurate beyond my wildest dreams; the Columbine shooting has reaped an overflowing harvest of scapegoats for everyone to blame. Within hours and days of the incident, I noted that all of the following "causes" have been blamed by parents, teachers, and self-proclaimed experts for the tragedy in Colorado:

• Violent movies. Both gunmen enjoyed the movie "Natural Born Killers," and supposedly watched it to the point of obsession. Obviously, violent movies are to blame for this tragedy!

• Computer games. Harris and Klebold liked to play computer games like Doom and Quake, which feature ultra-gory depictions of exploding bodies and flying blood. Obviously, violent computer games are to blame for this tragedy!

• Popular music. Several sources reported that the two students were fans of the German techno rock band KMFDM, the heavy metal band Nine Inch Nails, and shock-rock singer Marilyn Manson. Obviously, pop music is to blame for this tragedy!

• The Internet. Eric Harris had an account on America On-Line, where he posted apocalyptic messages and bomb-building recipes on his personal web site. Obviously, the internet is to blame for this tragedy!

• War games. Harris and Klebold liked to re-create World War II battles and were devotees of "MechWarrior," a game of military combat with futuristic walking war machines. Obviously, war games are to blame for this tragedy!

• Goths. Harris and Klebold enjoyed wearing black clothing similar to the ones favored by "goth" (gothic) teenagers, and Harris belonged to a Web group that features Gothic lore. Obviously, goths are to blame for this tragedy!

• Hitler and the Nazis. Many students noted that the two teens had a "fixation" on Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler -- and in fact, the shooting took place on Hitler's birthday. Obviously, Nazis are to blame for this tragedy!

• Gun culture and the NRA. Fellow Columbine students noted that Harris and Klebold had a fixation with explosives and firearms, often bragging about the guns they owned. Obviously, guns and the NRA are to blame for this tragedy!

• American society. Violence is everywhere -- NATO is bombing Yugoslavia, "Jerry Springer" and "South Park" are popular television shows, and there's no prayer allowed in schools. Obviously, our society is to blame for this tragedy!

What a list, huh? All you'd need to do is add "illegal drugs," "satanism," and "child abuse," and you'd have a complete collection of Every Single Reason Why Good Kids Turn Into Psycho Killers™.

Unfortunately, blaming any of those reasons for the Littleton shooting is simply ludicrous. Only the truly naive will believe that Harris and Klebold were pristine innocents who, after a chance encounter with violent movies/violent games/pop music/whatever else, were corrupted into inhuman monsters who decided to shoot up Columbine for laughs.

The truth is, real people simply don't work that way. Once past the earliest years of childhood, our minds are often lazy and outright resilient to change (hence the common use of assumptions and stereotypes in our everyday thinking). Even when we are willing to consider a new idea, we must give it lots of time and introspection before we finally agree to adopt it -- and even then, the change in our personality is more likely to be a minor shift in emphasis, rather than a complete and radical turnabout.

To suggest that Harris and Klebold -- or anyone else -- would behave differently is both ridiculous and insulting. Ridiculous, because it implies that their minds are somehow vastly different from the norm; and insulting, because it implies that their minds are less resilient than those of others. And yet, while everyone would reject the idea that a corrupting influence can twist their own beliefs, most of the self-proclaimed pundits apparently have no qualms about applying such a ridiculous idea to the Columbine gunmen.

In fact, despite what the overzealous activists wish to imply, there remains no solid evidence whatsoever that any of the "causes" I've listed above actually causes violent behavior in anyone. There's no proof of causality here -- no evidence that watching a violent movie or playing a violent video game or listening to "shock rock" will make someone turn violent. There's ample evidence that a violent-minded person is attracted to violent movies/games/songs, but that's not the same as saying the movies/games/songs cause the violence.

Consider the following: the Columbine shooting, horrific thought it might be, was not the worst school massacre in American history. That distinction goes to the Bath Michigan Elementary School, where Andrew Kehoe, a school board member and local farmer, killed forty-five people (most of whom were below the age of ten) with a series of dynamite explosions.

The date of this disaster? May 18, 1927. Before "Natural Born Killers," before Doom, before rock and roll, the Internet, Nazi Germany, Goths, the NRA, or any of the other convenient scapegoats.

That is what always turns the "blame argument" on its ear -- no matter how far back we go, no matter how many "causes" we revoke or ban or censure, we're going to find some violent incident that predates those efforts. How many parents protesting Doom and Quake grew up playing Cowboys and Indians? How many people protesting violent movies thrilled to the adventures of the Lone Ranger and John Wayne? How many folks accusing the NRA of promoting gun violence ever played with a squirt gun or water pistol? What was the number one rock album on the charts when World War I started?

Still not convinced? Try this on for size: despite the increasing number of violent movies, violent video games, and violent rock albums, the Department of Justice's own crime rate records show that deadly violence in American schools and the teen crime rate are declining. Let's see the self-proclaimed experts blame their way out of this one.

The truth is that the Columbine shooting cannot be conveniently blamed on any external corrupting "cause," either alone or with others. Instead, blame (such as it is) should probably go to the single thing that influences all of us more than anything else: our experiences in life. Is it possible that Harris and Klebold viewed violence and hostility as an acceptable response because their lives were already full of violence and hostility?

Indeed, subsequent revelations have borne out this theory. Consider:

• Members of the Trench Coat Mafia (including Harris and Klebold) were often singled out due to their clothing and sometimes blamed for things they hadn't done. In contrast, the school's athletes were often given preferential treatment by the teachers, to the point where their misbehavior was routinely ignored.

• Further flaunting their power, many Columbine athletes treated the Mafia kids badly and with random assaults. Students reported seeing the athletes pushing members of the Trench Coat Mafia against the wall as they passed each other in the halls.

• Harris and Klebold were often taunted by the other students, who called them names like "dirtbag," "faggots," "pussy," or "inbreeds."

• Unfounded rumors that members of the Trench Coat Mafia were homosexuals were routinely circulated throughout the school, and Harris and Klebold were jeered as "lovers" by some. Harris' girlfriend noted that he was deeply disturbed by accusations that he was gay.

• Others reported that some students -- especially the athletes -- would pelt the two with rocks, cans, cigarettes, and bottles from moving cars.

Gosh, with a social environment like this, is it any real surprise that they finally snapped and went berserk? Or that eight of the twelve -- more than half -- of their student victims were athletes? Not that I'm condoning their actions by any means, but -- to be perfectly fair -- they shouldn't have had to suffer that sort of abuse, either. None of us are bottomless wells of tolerance, after all; I think that if most folks had to endure similar circumstances, they might find some way to lash out as well. It's no surprise to me that survivors of the rampage reported that the gunmen shouted about getting revenge for past abuses.

Unfortunately, there isn't a ready answer to this problem. Social cliques -- and the admiration/condemnation of people in other groups -- have been a part of schools for years. And while it is theoretically possible to diffuse the strengths of cliques, I'm enough of a realist not to expect America's schools to stop worshiping their athletes or to start treating all kids equally. In any case, inter-clique conflicts are usually kept at a tolerable level, but every school administrator knows an incident where a student who was pushed too far retaliated with a spontaneous fistfight.

Which, of course, just simply reaffirms that what happened at Columbine is not some dark product of Hollywood/Quake/Goths/whatever,but a(nother) outburst of teenage anger and isolationism. The only thing that catapulted Columbine to national attention was the body count.

Now that I've argued why simplistic answers aren't available for the Columbine shooting, why do people insist on trying to find neat solutions anyway? I think the reason is twofold.

The first reason is fear. The most horrifying aspect of Harris' and Klebold's massacre -- and the one receiving the least attention -- is the idea that it could have been anyone else pulling the trigger.

No parent ever wants to admit this. No parent wants to look at their beloved children and consider that they've raised a psychotic killer or a deranged sociopath (or even a hurt and lonely outsider). Perhaps it's a genetic part of our evolutionary development, or simple denial rooted in our religious teachings, but we humans cannot readily accept the idea that our offspring are "evil." After all, children are supposed to be a reflection of their parents; if your kid becomes a deranged madman, what does that imply about you?

This is too much for most people to accept. Better, instead, to find an external scapegoat to blame for the problems, to shift the blame and the cause away from ourselves. "My well-behaved son was twisted into a sociopath by 'Natural Born Killers!'" is easier for us to face than "My daughter became a sociopath because I didn't help her cope with life!"

Unwilling to confront our own shortcomings, we prefer to put the blame on external forces -- and absolve ourselves in the process.

The second reason is laziness. To be an accountable parent means many things. It means being in touch with your kids, working to learn how they feel and why. It means being a trusted confidant for advice, and working to keep that trust. It means following your kids' interests, looking for anything that might be troubling behavior, while walking that fine line between being justifiably concerned and excessively judgmental.

It means, in short, a lot of work.

On the other hand, placing blame -- and tossing out simplistic answers as a result -- is effortless by comparison. Just hold a raid on your children's lives: toss out those Marilyn Manson albums, delete Doom and Quake off the hard drive, bury those copies of "Natural Born Killers" and "Die Hard," and burn those black trench coats and Goth outfits. There! Your house is now a bad-influence-free zone, and you can go back to watching "Wheel of Fortune" with nary an interruption. Never mind that you've made your kids angry at you, or that it won't have any effect whatsoever. You've bought some peace of mind in exchange for a few convenient scapegoats and oversimplified solutions.

Accountability is hard, but blaming is easy -- and given that humans are inherently lazy, it's a lot easier to blame "corrupting influences"(and purge them) than to actually make an effort to be a good parent.

For me, that's the most distressing thing about the Littleton massacre -- the mindless mobs rushing for something to blame, something to censure, something to repress, all in the misguided name of "fixing" the problem. As I've tried to show above, this is a problem that defies a quick fix, yet too many overeager people are looking for one anyway -- and causing even more damage in the process.

The reports are starting to come in, and I fear them much more than I fear anything Harris or Klebold did in Littleton. Activist groups are targeting their favorite scapegoats already -- the Hollywood movie studios, the National Rifle Association, the music industry, video game developers -- pointing fingers, assigning blame, and pressing for more controls. Never mind that there isn't any proof that any of those groups are to blame; the witch hunt has begun, and the Legions of the Ignorant will not let evidence (and a lack thereof) stand in their way.

Meanwhile, members of the Goth subculture are already being wrongly portrayed as Satanists, anarchists, and other Evil Killers of Small Fuzzy Animals, just because a few clueless reporters needed a sensationalist angle or an eye-catching headline. I'm not big on Goth by any means, but I can't stomach seeing any group get the kind of hackneyed, misinformed, and outright clueless descriptions that they've gotten in the last few weeks. It's also rather disturbing to see the total lack of support the Goths have received from anyone; isn't this kind of slander a job for the Anti-Defamation League?

But the biggest crisis -- and my biggest fear -- is that teenagers are being targeted by their peers and teachers and families due to the Columbine hysteria. In their search for convenient, quick-fix solutions, non-conformist teens are already being accused, tried, and convicted all across America:

• A student in Idaho wrote an article for the school newspaper, where he opined that the Columbine shooting occurred because the public school system isolated the gunmen for being smart. As a result, the article was suppressed, the student was suspended, and the school administrators threatened him to say nothing about the incident.

• Another student at a private high school mentioned in religion class that he could understand what drove Harris and Klebold to murder. The administration office suspended him until he received a psychological review.

• A twelve-year-old in Delaware pointed two fingers into a gun shape and pretended to shoot other students in jest. He was arrested on charges of making "death threats."

• A student was called a "trench coat freak" and put on probation by a school counselor. His crime? Wearing a trench coat over black clothes. Another student who arrived at school wearing a Quake T-shirt was suspended and told to seek psychiatric help.

• School districts in Colorado, New Hampshire, New York, Tennessee, and Alabama are already prohibiting students from wearing trench coats of any kind. Portsmith has also banned all clothing associated with Marilyn Manson, based on (erroneous) initial reports that Eric Harris was a fan of the singer.

• The parents of a ten-year-old boy in New England took away their son's computer because they were afraid he'd do "something" they didn't know about.

• Another student who wore a trench coat to school had his home searched by police deputies based on an anonymous "rumor" they received. When he went to school, he was ordered to see the vice principal, a guidance counselor, and a police detective who accused him (without evidence) of making bombs.

Given that all of the evidence indicates that the Columbine shooters planned their massacre because they were feeling isolated and persecuted, why are these "authority figures" making other teens feel more isolated and persecuted? Don't they realize that they're making things worse?

Slashdot.org (a web magazine devoted to computer technical issues) published an article called "Why Kids Kill," wherein the writer denounced the hysterical finger-pointing after the Columbine shootout as misguided and erroneous.

In response, thousands of teens wrote in with tales on how they've been harassed, persecuted, and targeted merely for being different -- because the people around them have caught Columbine hysteria and think the kids will go bonkers at any minute. The response has been so great that Slashdot's computers have crashed several times from the overwhelming load, a clear sign that this is a crisis not to be ignored.

Their letters have been excerpted in a series of articles, all of which are highly recommended:

As I write this now, I wonder if the hysterical adults across America will stop their overzealous persecution before it's too late...

I can't think of a pat ending to this essay (rather appropriate, actually, since there aren't any pat answers to this whole mess), so I'll just close with a few random questions:

• One of the recurring comments made about the Columbine shooting is that "we didn't think such a thing could happen here [Littleton, CO]." What's the implication there -- that if Columbine High was an inner-city school in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles, that it would not have been a big deal? Is everyone paying so much attention to Columbine because it's a true tragedy, or because the victims and killers were middle-class suburban white kids instead of "disadvantaged" minorities from low-income families?

• The NRA has long argued that tragedies like the Columbine shooting can be averted by having armed school administrators on campus. Given that there was an armed security guard at the school, why hasn't this argument changed?

• How many of the student survivors of Columbine thought to themselves, "If I had been nicer to Eric and Dylan, this might not have happened"?

  I suspect the answer is, "not enough"...

--R.J.