The "Right" Number of Victims (Morbid)

Some people here speculate on how lucky it was that only 13 blameless people were killed in Columbine.

I just wonder if it was the right number in order for it to be a big media circus. Big enough to be recognized as a calamity, small enough so that each one can be individually memorialized. You can even list every one's name if you'd like to. Of course, the media circus bit was also helped by the fact that the two killers were so young, and they had appealing yearbook pictures taken that made them look so "normal".

The other mass killings didn't catch on like Columbine did. They were committed by older men, and I think the public was ready to handle middle-aged guys killing over 20 people. They weren't ready for two fresh-faced teenagers (from their yearbook photos) teaming up and killing 13.

Of course, it was initially reported that the two killers broke the American record for spree killing, but that's another issue for another time.

Middle aged guys? I assume you aren't on about Cho, Lanza, Holmes, Elliot Roger etc? Guys under 25 are nowhere near middle aged.

Draw_It_White wrote:

Middle aged guys? I assume you aren't on about Cho, Lanza, Holmes, Elliot Roger etc? Guys under 25 are nowhere near middle aged.

I was talking about shootings that happened before Columbine. At McDonalds and that cafeteria.

Yeah, its interesting to think about because obviously there have been "bigger and worse" school shootings since, in terms of the murder count, but none of them have had the same impact as Columbine did. I'd say that it was for a number of reasons, including the year in which it happened, given that the boys went to school there, and given their ages. I also really like what you say about the "right" number of victims, and I definitely think thats true. Its still a shocking about but not enough to turn the victims from people to statistics. All the victims families have worked really hard to make sure their child is remembered (books, interviews, films etc) and so we know a lot about them. This definitely adds to why Columbine has such a big impact.

The massacre itself wasn't anywhere close to being the worst, but the original plan was set up to kill hundreds. I think that's also a big factor, what could have been had the bombs of went off. Of course, the actual killers play a huge role too. Two kids coming together to unleash a perfect storm of destruction, for no specific reason.

as the saying goes "you never forget your first"

- Televised
- school, kids
- tandem of classmates did it

4/20 will forever be the genesis

Fatheroftwo wrote:

as the saying goes "you never forget your first"

- Televised
- school, kids
- tandem of classmates did it

4/20 will forever be the genesis

I think the televised portion is what made it different. And part of the reason it was televised so much initially was because of outdated law enforcement tactics. Those bombs sure scared everyone.