Dont you find the Columbine- topic irritatingly sensationalist?

I know I do. You have either some people relying exclusively on Dave Cullen vs the other side taking every old news outlet as reliable information.

I think biased is the best way to describe it.

I think that sometimes the media doesnt give the whole story when they present a case. Lets just say that they talk about crime in Sweden. Yet, Google the stats and you see that its been pretty much the same for a decade.

I think the worst in this case is british MSM, like Daily Mail, etc.
Imo I think its wrong to assume that they werent bullied just because one journalist says so. But its also wrong to assume that everything that every negative encounter the two had was bullying.

N/A

G4145 wrote:

I've not been interested in Columbine for years. For me, its the basic bitch of mass shootings.

"The basic bitch of mass shootings" is exactly how I would describe Columbine.

it is not even edgy anymore...

I still think if they somehow leaked the basement tapes they would be so tame. Would I watch them.. hell yea, would I be shocked? Yea because Dylan spilling pop on the ground and Eric playing with his gun is so scary...

I think a lot of it has to do with the media. There were a few shootings before, but never had our society seen something on that kind of scale. Also, to think that two high school kids could think of and plan something so brutal as bombing and destroying their school while killing their innocent classmates, much less the act itself, chilled Americans- and the world- to their core.

It seems like shootings have become commonplace anymore, and it seems like they are only front page news for 2 days max. Then the news people pack up and it’s on to the next disaster or tragedy.

There are transcripts on Langmanns webside. I personally dont see how we need anything more than the transcript. The police didnt want there to be a copycat effect. I kind off respect their decision, in that case. But at the same time I think that too much negative exposure in the media ia not a good thing, either. There are always people that will glorify mass murders or copy them. I tend to think that they are contageous. For instance, a reseach programme argued that terrorists could be inspired by school shootings, and that they tend to copy people such as Breivik. I tend to think that theres a slight bit of a problem. Than you also have public backlash in some cases. Whereas people will use that kind off stuff to look for easy targets, i e anti- muslim backlash. Some people are so dense that they truly think that any horrific attack perpetrated by individuals represent an entire group of people. Im no fan of organized religion, either, but thats just incredibly stupid. I mean, that people blamed goths and music over Columbine, 9/11 on all muslims and Apparently autism over Sandy Hook...

Norwegian wrote:

There are transcripts on Langmanns webside. I personally dont see how we need anything more than the transcript.  

Notwithstanding the argument about whether it would incite copycats (though, realistically, the vast majority of shooters nowadays are in some way emulating Columbine in spite of never having seen the tapes), I think there's a huge benefit to actually viewing them. Actually seeing Eric and Dylan and how they interacted with one another has to provide some insight into each of them and their relationship with each other. And it's hard to rely on the interpretation of people who did see the tapes, because wouldn't we all watch them with our own filters?
For instance, Judy Brown hated Eric (with good reason) and when she watched them she thought Dylan was afraid of Eric, especially over the Jewish thing. But when reporters or the police watched them, none of them seemed to pick up on that. So, whose interpretation is accurate?

The summary of the tapes is definitely helpful but there's always the question as to what has been left out, what did some of the people omit that they didn't think important but might have been, what nuances were missed, etc.?

Not only that, I think the tapes would humanize Eric and Dylan in a way that a summary of them could not. By not seeing them it allows people to create this vision of these "monsters", these purely evil, not of this world psychos who did this terrible thing. It allows people to feel safe in their belief that Eric and Dylan are completely different from them or anyone they know. But, realistically, despite their horrendous actions, Eric and Dylan WERE human. They spent the majority of their lives doing what all of us do but somewhere along the line they strayed. Somewhere they crossed over into this twisted belief system that made them think that destruction was justified and necessary. This isn't to say that "anyone" can become a killer, but our eyes should be open to the fact that the majority of people who do these horrific things are not born to do them and only by trying to figure out what circumstances led to their "conversion" can we hope to step in and prevent other people from walking that road.

Given that theres allready transcripts available I dont see the big deal.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

There are transcripts on Langmanns webside. I personally dont see how we need anything more than the transcript.  

Notwithstanding the argument about whether it would incite copycats (though, realistically, the vast majority of shooters nowadays are in some way emulating Columbine in spite of never having seen the tapes), I think there's a huge benefit to actually viewing them. Actually seeing Eric and Dylan and how they interacted with one another has to provide some insight into each of them and their relationship with each other. And it's hard to rely on the interpretation of people who did see the tapes, because wouldn't we all watch them with our own filters?
For instance, Judy Brown hated Eric (with good reason) and when she watched them she thought Dylan was afraid of Eric, especially over the Jewish thing. But when reporters or the police watched them, none of them seemed to pick up on that. So, whose interpretation is accurate?

The summary of the tapes is definitely helpful but there's always the question as to what has been left out, what did some of the people omit that they didn't think important but might have been, what nuances were missed, etc.?

Not only that, I think the tapes would humanize Eric and Dylan in a way that a summary of them could not. By not seeing them it allows people to create this vision of these "monsters", these purely evil, not of this world psychos who did this terrible thing. It allows people to feel safe in their belief that Eric and Dylan are completely different from them or anyone they know. But, realistically, despite their horrendous actions, Eric and Dylan WERE human. They spent the majority of their lives doing what all of us do but somewhere along the line they strayed. Somewhere they crossed over into this twisted belief system that made them think that destruction was justified and necessary. This isn't to say that "anyone" can become a killer, but our eyes should be open to the fact that the majority of people who do these horrific things are not born to do them and only by trying to figure out what circumstances led to their "conversion" can we hope to step in and prevent other people from walking that road.

I dont know about this, but I assume its because they allready knew that they were two disturbed individuals. When you work as a criminologist, for instance, I assume that they have to be prepared for these people to have something wrong with them. Similarly, we have seen disturbing or disturbed mindsets in other mass shootings before that. Take Jonesboro as an example. Langmann argues, for instance, that this case was similar to Columbine in the sense that, not only have you a leader/ follower- pattern, but the one- Andrew Golden, that is- had personality traits where had he been considered an adult he would have been most likely regarded as a psychopath. He also argues that the psychopathic shooter makes up one out of 3 main categories. In that case, it wouldnt really surprise me, considering what we know about some of the school shooters. I think that its possible that they would have made the conclusion that given everything else that we know about Eric hes reaction isnt really that surprising. Also, when you work with cases like these I would also assume that you become desentizised to a lot of things.
But of course for the average person and if you allready knew that he had made threats against your own child, I can understand that too.

Outside of this forum I rarely hear the word columbine mentioned. No one around me would even know the shooters names or the circumstances of what lead up to it. The last time I heard someone mention it was over a decade ago, some teacher preaching that they were in the trench coat mafia and all the other media lies he believed.

I think people have gotten desensitized to shootings as they have become more common place in recent years.

joebox97 wrote:

Outside of this forum I rarely hear the word columbine mentioned. No one around me would even know the shooters names or the circumstances of what lead up to it. The last time I heard someone mention it was over a decade ago, some teacher preaching that they were in the trench coat mafia and all the other media lies he believed.

I think people have gotten desensitized to shootings as they have become more common place in recent years.

Same and Im from Norway(hence my nick name). Whole world became shocked when Utøya happened because no one could ever imagine it happening in Norway.

Yet, the fact is you dont have to look very far outside of Norway. Gernany and Finland has had a few. I think most people see it as an american phenomenon. Yet, the fact is it can happen anywhere. Just, the US is pretty much at the top.

And this is why Im catious about narrrowing it down to bullying or mental health. Because bullying is a global phenomenon. So is mental health issues. Even though health care is pretty good. I dont see us having the social cliques that you may find in the UK or US. But definately people are bullied here, too. And sustain emotional damage as a result. We are probably at number 8 when it boils down to access to firearms.
.
This is why Im thinking that bullying itself is not an adequate explanation for school shootings. T
heres a lot more going on. Millions of people are bullled relentlessly all over the world. Yet, school shootings are extremely rare. That is not say that we should rule out trauma of child abuse or extreme bullying as a factor. I dont think we should. But there are many options to look for.

9/11/92 17 year old Randy Earl Matthews shot and wounded 7 students after a pep rally with a .22.
Now there were no deaths it just shows that school shootings had been going on.

Columbine is unique because it wasn't impromptu. It was planned. It took the the lives of 13 excluding the killers. Two teenagers did it not some weird middle aged man that targeted a soft zone like in the past.


The sensationalizing of the 'Trench Coat Mafia' by the media portraying a disenfranchised group of people getting revenge on a society that has ridiculed and cast aside the 'undesirables' of school society.

It is described one as a psychopath full of rage and the other as an Emo follower who wanted to end his life.

The two killers documented fairly well through writings and video their pending venganace.

Columbine was a recipe for romanticizing. Perhaps Eric was a little prophetic on that aspect of it([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])