Tragic.
Simply Tragic.
Yes, I'm talking about the shootings in Littleton, Colorado at Columbine High School. But only part of that tragedy involves the lost lives of 15 people and the agonizing trauma of those wounded. When I heard about the shootings it was still going on and I thought and hoped that whoever was responsible was simply acting out their rage against the school and not killing students or teachers. That hope, of course, was in vain. As events unfolded and we learned more, the tragedy of it all became apparent.
It could have been prevented.
It should have been prevented!
As we begin to know more, once again we learn that warning signs were prevalent, yet ignored by parents, teachers, staff and schoolmates. We see reports that they were "fascinated with death", with Nazism, talked about Adolf Hitler frequently, talked to each other in German, and talked of their dislike for minorities and jocks. One of them operated a website, well known to some students, which reportedly showed their fascination with war, death and destruction. Too, they wore their own "uniform" of black trenchcoats and sunglasses. While kids dressing up to associate with each other isn't an instant sign of impending danger, someone had to notice that this was just a little more than "strange".
The tragedy here is that so many people dismissed or ignored these kids just as people did with the ones in Oregon, or Pearl Mississippi, or Jonesboro, Arkansas. Consider how it feels to be a social "outcast", as these boys were described, then to make threats against others to build up your own ego, only to have your threats not only not taken seriously, but dismissed like one would dismiss the idea of using money as toilet paper. Repeatedly, it seems, these young men had contact with others who could see they were infatuated with death, war, destruction and armaments.
In the aftermath, people will be understandably angry and demand someone or something to blame. We'll undoubtedly hear calls for more gun control, more arguments for putting children into some kind of counseling when they deviate from "acceptable norms", a hue and cry to censor portions of the Internet to prevent violent kids from learning how to make bombs or explosives and less violence in movies and television. We'll see lawsuits crop up to blame the city, the schools, the media, guns or even Internet content providers. The sad part is that none of this flailing about to fix blame will really address the problem, nor will it even come close to preventing the next occurrence.
The "next occurrence?" I hear you ask. Yes. Because young people like these two are immature and lacking in character tend to look for something or someone to follow. In this case, these two chose Adolf Hitler, violence and retribution. I don't think it will be too long before another introverted, shunned and "outcast" youth has mulled over the coverage of these events and finds a twisted way to justify doing the same kind of thing.
We are all, in part, responsible. Those of us who are parents must make sure we are spending enough time with our children to make sure we instill them with good judgement, moral values, a questioning mind, good decision making skills and -- most importantly -- to listen to them. Listen to their fears, their goals, and especially their frustrations in life. And parents must have answers for them. If not solidly tried and true answers, then answers that will make their children realize that they are loved and valued for who they are, not what they are not.
Employers, especially employers, should take a stand to let employees with children spend time with them. Telecommuting could be one option. I've known some employees who are plagued with "guilt speeches" by their bosses to get them to work longer hours or stick to very aggressive schedules, to be a "team player" so they can succeed (with the implication that you won't succeed if you don't play along) which causes longer absences from home and emotional exhaustion when they are home. This can lead to not dealing with or listening to their children's problems, except in the most reactionary way. From the child's perspective, the parents are unemotional (from exhaustion), detached, and only present in the evenings (and some teens would argue that they only come home to give them grief). I'll even go so far as to say that if you are a supervisor, manager or executive and you have ever put a subordinate in the position of choosing between their potential future career and family, you contributed to the Littleton shootings. No, not directly, but by proxy -- by putting the needs of a business over that of a family.
In the aftermath we'll see well meaning people, as well as those with their own personal agendas, proposing more laws or regulations. Undoubtedly we'll see Sarah Brady's face hawking so-called "safety locks", safes, vaults, etc. for guns. We'll see child advocacy groups pitching "protective" laws that will, probably, cause more disruption to family and guilt on the child, than it will prevent incidents like this. But do we need more rules?
Consider this. It's already a federal and state crime for persons under age 18 (21 in some states) to possess a handgun. It's a crime to saw off shotguns like the young men did in Littleton. It's a crime to make pipe bombs. It's a crime to bring firearms onto school grounds. It's a crime to set booby traps. Or to shoot people. Or terrorize people with a firearm. Or to detonate bombs to injure people. These two students violated at least nine to ten laws which should have deterred them from committing such a heinous series of acts. But the laws didn't deter them at all. Why?
The answer to that is simple. Laws can only deter those who aren't committed enough to follow through. For those people who have given up caring about themselves or others, the laws are mere words on paper. These words give us the right to punish someone only after they have committed the crime. The punishment is also intended to serve as a deterrent. But mere words on paper cannot deter someone bent on revenge with suicide as their final act.
If we enact more laws or regulations, will this prevent one or more suicidal or vengeance-seeking youths from violating those laws? I seriously doubt these Colorado students really cared how many laws they were breaking, unless it was to be excited about their own "dangerousness".
You may have read that the Columbine school actually had a police officer on campus when the shootings started. You may have read how that officer was "powerless" to do anything against the two "well armed" teens. Perhaps the press thinks that with each youth possessing a sawed off shotgun (one a double-barrel the other a pump action shotgun) plus a single pistol constitutes "well armed"). You may have also read that the SWAT team responded quickly, yet it took the SWAT teams almost 90 minutes to begin entering the building. In the meantime, students and faculty died, were wounded, or cowered in terror waiting for rescue.
To be sure the police likely never planned for this kind of situation and needed to gather some information before entering. Yet, several police sources have claimed that they'll do no good if they rush in only to be gunned down by the shooters - or hit with explosives. In other words, the cops are willing to let you stay in harm's way until they are ready to proceed with their own plans. Apparently the police didn't think it would be advisable to use their own officers to distract the gunmen from executing students methodically. It didn't occur to them that any distraction may have interfered with the gunmen's plans.
This is reality. Forget John Wayne coming to the rescue. Forget Bruce Willis' "John McClain" from Die Hard having the guts to slog it out with the bad guys. Forget a Steven Segal who will fight against all odds to save innocent people. This is reality. You have no right to protection by the police in this country and relying on them to protect you, rescue you, or even respond to your call for help is to surrender your safety, your life, to the same government that pays $1000 for a Sears Hammer, or $500 for a toilet seat. Comforting, isn't it?
I watched a Colorado Congresswoman on Fox News today discussing the situation and the proposal by Colorado's legislature to debate a concealed firearms bill. And I was appalled at her lack of concern for her constituent's students when she said one version of the bill would permit carrying of weapons in schools, calling it "ridiculous" or "insane". Unfortunately, the news anchor lacked the testicular fortitude to ask her what she thinks would have happened if one or two of the faculty or, perhaps, the librarian had been able to shoot back, . And considering that concealed permit holders are subjected to a background check and also have to be older than a high school student (21 in most states), the only people who would be legally permitted to carry would be faculty and staff, not the students!
The shootings were tragic, but they are not the only tragedy.