If Natural Born Killers never existed, would Columbine still have happened?

I think a lot of people on here agree with me on the fact that Columbine was Dylan’s idea. He started talking about “going NBK” over a year before Eric did. I also think it’s pretty obvious Dylan got the idea from the movie Natural Born Killers. He named it NBK and wanted to do it with a girl, just like in the movie.

There’s no denying how much influence the movie had on Dylan. After he saw it, he started to copy the main character’s style and even grew his hair out to have the same hairstyle as him. He was also so obsessed with finding true love that it wouldn’t be far off to claim that he wanted to copy the love story in the film as well, which is why it was originally about finding a girl to go NBK with.

After awhile, he realized that wasn’t going to happen, and with the idea of NBK already in his head, combined with a multitude of other factors (depression, bullying, the van incident), he settled to do it with Eric and brought the idea up with him. He wasn’t happy about it though, he wrote “go NBK w. Eric (gawd)” in his journal, with “gawd” being after Eric’s name, not after NBK.

If the movie was never made, I don’t think Dylan would have came up with the idea on his own. I also don’t think any other violent movies would have given him the idea either because it seemed like it was the love aspect of it that originally drew him in, but as time went on it became less about that and more about the violence. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have settled to do it with Eric. But if the idea of an NBK wasn’t in his head to begin in, maybe it wouldn’t have escalated that far.

Some may disagree, but I also don’t think it would have worked if it had been Eric’s idea. Eric would have jokingly brought it up to Dylan, but I don’t think Dylan would treat it as anything more than a joke, then Eric would think he wasn’t interested and drop it. I can see Dylan bringing it up to Eric and Eric making it a reality though, which is what I believe happened.

I’m not saying Natural Born Killers was the sole cause of Columbine. I know multiple factors caused it and that thousands of teenage boys also saw the movie and didn’t plan a NBK. I do think it planted the idea in Dylan’s head though, which led to it eventually being shared with Eric and becoming a real plan.

We can never know for sure right. But (not only gun) violence is a key part of the culture they were raised in. And although they were the ones consciously making decisions and taking actions leading up to the shooting, they also had lots of inspiration to model their act upon. In a way, they just connected already existent dots in their own twisted manner, and the movie was one of the dots.

I also view Dylan as the lazy but imaginative thinker and Eric as the busy and capable organizer/manipulator. I can imagine Dylan feeling like his idea had outgrown him and took on a life of its own through Eric's methodical and proactive nature. I feel like Dylan kinda had to be dragged along and Eric needed to drag someone with him to boast to and be admired/respected by.

N/A

Not a bad question, and I agree the love aspect of NBK is important to explain Dylan's interest (his initials being DBK probably slightly helped too), but 

Quote :

he wrote “go NBK w. Eric (gawd)” in his journal, with “gawd” being after Eric’s name, not after NBK.

is simply false, it was written after NBK, with NBK in scare quotes. Seems more to do with, say, being tired of calling it "NBK" by that point. Perhaps because he came up with it first, and so it was still fresh to Eric, but not Dylan.

patogen wrote:

We can never know for sure right. But (not only gun) violence is a key part of the culture they were raised in.

Violence is endemic to every culture on the planet and throughout human history almost every culture that has ever existed has had violence or ideation of violence within it, so this is a totally meaningless observation. Really if we want to go there, plenty of other countries and societies in 1999 were much more accepting of the usage of violence as a means to an end than the United States.

patogen wrote:

And although they were the ones consciously making decisions and taking actions leading up to the shooting, they also had lots of inspiration to model their act upon. In a way, they just connected already existent dots in their own twisted manner, and the movie was one of the dots.

This I will tentatively agree on. The Oklahoma City Bombing was definitely a massive inspiration for them, arguably more than any other influence and source. Nazi Germany was something Eric showed keen interest in. Dylan Klebold made a school assignment about Charles Manson at one point. They (or at least Eric) was at least somewhat aware of prior school shootings as well. So there definitely were at lot of sources of inspiration from real-world violent acts alone.

cakeman wrote:

Not a bad question, and I agree the love aspect of NBK is important to explain Dylan's interest (his initials being DBK probably slightly helped too), but

Quote :

he wrote “go NBK w. Eric (gawd)” in his journal, with “gawd” being after Eric’s name, not after NBK.

is simply false, it was written after NBK, with NBK in scare quotes. Seems more to do with, say, being tired of calling it "NBK" by that point. Perhaps because he came up with it first, and so it was still fresh to Eric, but not Dylan.

I always thought that Dylan was sick of the name "NBK" because of how out of place and - at risk of sounding juvenile - homoerotic it sounded, since in the movie you had a man and a woman going on a kill-spree, whereas with Columbine it was a couple of teenage boys.

cakeman wrote:

Quote :

he wrote “go NBK w. Eric (gawd)” in his journal, with “gawd” being after Eric’s name, not after NBK.

is simply false, it was written after NBK, with NBK in scare quotes. Seems more to do with, say, being tired of calling it "NBK" by that point. Perhaps because he came up with it first, and so it was still fresh to Eric, but not Dylan.

I actually always thought "maybe going "NBK" (gawd) w. eric is the way to break free. i hate this." meant Dylan was thinking, "God, I can't believe we're really thinking about doing this."

thelmar wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Quote :

he wrote “go NBK w. Eric (gawd)” in his journal, with “gawd” being after Eric’s name, not after NBK.

is simply false, it was written after NBK, with NBK in scare quotes. Seems more to do with, say, being tired of calling it "NBK" by that point. Perhaps because he came up with it first, and so it was still fresh to Eric, but not Dylan.

I actually always thought "maybe going "NBK" (gawd) w. eric is the way to break free. i hate this." meant Dylan was thinking, "God, I can't believe we're really thinking about doing this."

I myself have shied away from this explanation because earlier in Dylan's journal he was articulating a desire to go on a killing spree without seeming to have any second thoughts about it. I don't think he would've changed his stance in between then and when he wrote about doing it with Eric; on the contrary I'd think he'd be more gung-ho about it than before since he'd be getting closer to that goal. Hence why I've always thought he was just cringing over the name.

thelmar wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Quote :

he wrote “go NBK w. Eric (gawd)” in his journal, with “gawd” being after Eric’s name, not after NBK.

is simply false, it was written after NBK, with NBK in scare quotes. Seems more to do with, say, being tired of calling it "NBK" by that point. Perhaps because he came up with it first, and so it was still fresh to Eric, but not Dylan.

I actually always thought "maybe going "NBK" (gawd) w. eric is the way to break free. i hate this." meant Dylan was thinking, "God, I can't believe we're really thinking about doing this."

Maybe, but that too seems more consistent with gawd being after Eric. That's the view Krabbe takes, and Krabbe takes gawd as referring to Eric. However, it's by NBK, and the scare quotes suggest a use/mention distinction, i. e. that it's about the acronym itself. Perhaps like QM and OP says, it implies a love story, and Dylan is the more lovesick. Also, yeah, too typical of saying Dylan was the reluctant one when could just as well be the crazier of the two.

I had to look at this thread prior to logging in to even see this reply, which led me realize I had you on ignore. And now I know why.

QuestionMark wrote:

Violence is endemic to every culture on the planet

Since 'endemic to every' is an oxymoron, it's safe to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.

QuestionMark wrote:

and throughout human history almost every culture that has ever existed has had violence or ideation of violence within it, so this is a totally meaningless observation. Really if we want to go there, plenty of other countries and societies in 1999 were much more accepting of the usage of violence as a means to an end than the United States.

Given that not every culture embraces nonsensical violence as a driving force of music, movies, games; given that not every culture markets or sells violence to kids; the observation that violence is a KEY part of American culture (I should have said entertainment there) is pretty important for understanding Columbine, as we are not talking about violence as a means to an end, but violence as an end in itself. Or completely nonsensical violence committed for personal entertainment (have fun!) and posthumous notoriety. All in all, it was violence for the sake of violence modeled and named after a violent movie. So the argument that plenty of other countries and societies in 1999 were much more accepting of the usage of violence as a means to an end than the United States is actually completely pointless to this debate, plus, of course, unsubstantiated.

You could argue (but you probably won't) that the art of Ancient Greece was full of rape and kidnap, and that even fairy tales are violent, which would be correct, but violence is always a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Entertaining violence for the sake of violence seems endemic to the United States and its offshoots. Which, hopefully, at least demonstrates what endemic means. If nothing else.

  

patogen wrote:

I had to look at this thread prior to logging in to even see this reply, which led me realize I had you on ignore. And now I know why.

I'm sorry you feel this way.

patogen wrote:

Given that not every culture embraces nonsensical violence as a driving force of music, movies, games

How so? Based on what? What evidence do you have that this is unique to American culture and - most critically - is absent from other cultures? What do you consider to be "nonsensical" violence?

patogen wrote:

given that not every culture markets or sells violence to kids

Unless you're trying to tell me that Looney Toons slapstick humor counts as selling violence to children, I'm going to respectfully disagree, since to buy R-rated films and M-rated games, an individual has to be of a certain age. I should know; I work in retail. If said adult wants to turn around and show their kid Hostel or let them play Grand Theft Auto, well that's on them.

patogen wrote:

the observation that violence is a KEY part of American culture (I should have said entertainment there) is pretty important for understanding Columbine, as we are not talking about violence as a means to an end, but violence as an end in itself. Or completely nonsensical violence committed for personal entertainment (have fun!) and posthumous notoriety.

Am I correct in assuming that by saying "violence for its own sake", you mean "violence born of sadism"? Because I don't believe it's "nonsensical" for someone to kill out of sadism. And frankly "violence as a means to an end" isn't very far removed from "violence for its own sake", especially when said "ends" are often petty power plays. If you want I can illustrate what I mean by this by citing historical examples.  

patogen wrote:

All in all, it was violence for the sake of violence modeled and named after a violent movie.

A movie that reflected the culture it found itself in, since it was based on the crime spree of Charles Starkweather, includes copious mentions of real-world murderers (in particular Ted Bundy, Charles Whitman, and Charles Manson are all namedropped several times in the course of the film), and right before the credits includes footage of the Branch Davidian's complex burning down and various high-profile court cases of the time period.

patogen wrote:

So the argument that plenty of other countries and societies in 1999 were much more accepting of the usage of violence as a means to an end than the United States is actually completely pointless to this debate, plus, of course, unsubstantiated.

I respectfully disagree; I think it's very relevant to the debate. To use an example, if a country like Russia or China thinks it's okay to blow away unarmed protestors, then in theory that sends a message to the more disturbed individuals in these societies that it's alright to kill people in pursuit of power (one would think national policies that have consequences for the rest of society would have more impact on people than a few violent movies and games). I say "in theory" because China and Russia both appear to have fewer incidents of mass murder, rampage killings, and serial killers than the United States. So I think there's something more at work than violent movies, or music with edgy lyrics, or violent games.

patogen wrote:

You could argue (but you probably won't) that the art of Ancient Greece was full of rape and kidnap, and that even fairy tales are violent, which would be correct, but violence is always a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The "end" being achieved almost always boils down to power. Ancient Sparta practiced widespread infanticide in order to breed the toughest soldiers on the planet. The purpose, obviously, was to be the most powerful city-state in Greece. To me that's not very far removed from Eric talking with glee about how he wants to kill mentally disabled people, or putting people in a big game of Doom where only the best will live.

patogen wrote:

Entertaining violence for the sake of violence seems endemic to the United States and its offshoots.

Which "offshoots"? Not the UK, the country that has actively tried to censor violent movies and has very strict hate speech laws. Certainly not Australia, which is so censorship happy that Wikipedia needs three different articles to fully list everything that's banned or censored by their government. Not Germany, which would give China a run for its money on how many games they ban. I mean sure, Canada and Mexico are generally pretty lenient when it comes to violent entertainment...but the former has a lower homicide rate than the US (and has fewer rampage killers overall), and the latter has a murder rate comparable to that of Brazil, which bans several violent video games.

I mean, you could argue that Japan and Italy are exporters of mindlessly violent entertainment, since the former makes scores of violent video games (up to and including video games about raping women) and the latter practically created the Slasher Movie genre, revitalized the Western subgenre, and gave birth to some of the most over the top exploitation films in history (in particular Cannibal Holocaust and The 120 Days of Sodom). But rather than being American "offshoots", they were inspiration for some within the American entertainment industry to imitate their success.

Interesting thread.

As we know, a major part of their plan was to BLOW UP the school.

This was talked about by Eric & friends as early as 1997.

Honestly I feel that Eric/Dylan would have continued with their plan regardless of the NBK movie.


Harris told of ambition to blow up Columbine

April 29, 1999


Students say attacker was obsessed with explosives; investigators study tapes

By Kevin Vaughan, April M. Washington and Ann Carnahan Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writers


Eric Harris boasted to friends as long as two years ago that he wanted to blow up Columbine High School.

But none considered it anything more than a teenage fantasy -- until Harris and his friend, Dylan Klebold, stormed Columbine last week with bombs, assault weapons and shotguns.

"Every once in a while, Eric would talk about blowing up the school -- but we all talked about blowing up the school, or 'going postal' and shooting someone you're mad at," said Justin Preziodi, 20, who graduated from Columbine in 1997. "But you would never think someone would actually do it."

When the siege was over, Harris, Klebold, 12 fellow students and a teacher lay dead. Another 23 were injured -- 21 by gunfire.

Harris' obsession with explosives was a frequent topic of his conversations with fellow students.

"He used to talk about how he found stuff for bombs on the Internet," said Stephanie Hommel, a 17-year-old junior at Columbine. "No one took him seriously.

"He would talk about blowing up the school."

Preziodi, who took a second-period Internet class with Harris two years ago, said Harris loved to play a video game called Duke Nukem. In the game, each player tries to kill as many people as possible.

Preziodi said Harris and Klebold often came into the video store in Southwest Plaza where he worked.

They favored violent martial arts movies.

"I know killing is wrong," said Preziodi, who also enjoys violent action movies. "That stuff would never cross my mind. I thought Eric and Dylan knew the difference, too."

more here