Columbine High School Shooting

INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Background

School shootings are among the most pressing challenges that confront the US today. In the recent past, the nation has witnessed a number of shootings that have left dozens dead and many more injured. While each of these shootings has been tragic and regrettable, there are some whose impact on the US has been more profound. The 1999 shooting that occurred at Columbine High School is among the incidents which continue to shape how the US discusses such issues as gun control. This shooting is the focus of this paper. The paper adopts a criminology perspective in its exploration of the Columbine High School shooting and the implications that this incident presents for policing in the US. In particular, the paper examines the factors and issues that gave rise to the shooting. Specifically, the paper seeks to shed light on how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the perpetrators behind the shooting were able to kill 12 students and a teacher and how law enforcement agencies responded to the shooting. Furthermore, the paper addresses the criminal justice and policing implications of the incident.

As noted above, the Columbine High School shooting is the subject that this paper explores. While unfortunate, this incident provides lessons that the US can adopt as it seeks to make schools safer and prevent such mass-casualty incidents. For example, according to Hong et al. (2011), the shooting created a platform for the US to hold discussions on the socioecological roots of violent crime. In essence, the Columbine incident challenged the US to reflect on the strategies that can be implemented to secure schools. In fact, according to Jonson (2017), the Columbine shooting has facilitated the design of various interventions aimed at boosting school security. Whereas it is true that this incident has generated useful insights, it is important to acknowledge that it has also inspired divisions and conspiracies. For example, there are many who question the official account of the shooting. Since the US has been unable to persuade all its citizens to believe that the shooting actually occurred and its impacts were devastating, the nation will struggle to learn from this incident. A study that explores how the shooting unraveled, its causes, and the prevention measures that it triggered is desperately needed.

While the Columbine High School shooting is yet to be fully understood, some progress has been made in exploring the forces that underlie violent crime. For example, there are some scholars who have determined that stress is among the main drivers that fuel such crimes as the Columbine shooting. Furthermore, concerns have been raised that the lax gun laws in the US are partly to blame for mass shootings (DeFoster, 2010). There have even been calls for the US to introduce tougher laws if the efforts to tackle violent crime are to be successful. Basically, the Columbine shooting has highlighted the need for the US to confront violent crime and seek to understand its roots.

Justification

There is a solid rationale for the present study. The justification for the study lies primarily in the absence of clear answer regarding the origins and drivers of violent crime. For example, as noted above, while some researchers have linked such crimes as school shootings to mental illness, others are convinced that these crimes have their roots in America’s gun culture. Therefore, by highlighting the views of the two camps, the paper strives to establish how school shootings in the US have emerged. The most important justification for the paper is that it promises to unearth novel and highly effective solutions that the US could implement to rid its schools of security threats. The study is also important because it will shed light on research gaps and how they can be filled. In the years following the Columbine shooting, the US has suffered other devastating shootings. The study is indeed relevant and important as it promises to provide the US with insights on how best to prevent and respond to the shootings.

As will become clear in a later section, the current study was conducted using the literature review approach. This method was selected for various reasons. One, a large body of research literature on the Columbine shooting already exists. Therefore, the present study will benefit from what other researchers have established. Two, alternative approaches like primary research would be costly and difficult to conduct within the set timeline. Three, by conducting a literature review, it is possible to establish areas on which researchers agree and any disputes among them. These disputes and any gaps in research literature then serves as the foundation for the current study.

Delimitations and Scope

The scope of the present study is limited to the Columbine shooting. This incident has been selected for discussion because it serves as the best representation of the violent and gun crime problem that the US continues to grapple with. Additionally, the Columbine shooting allows one to gain deep insights into the complex forces that interact to generate criminal behavior as well as exploring the various law enforcement and criminology interventions that the US implements in response to violent crime. The study has also been limited to the Columbine shooting because this incident has had far-reaching impacts on American society. For example, witnesses and victims have reported developing mental health problems as a result of the shooting (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015). Therefore, since it is special and intriguing in its causes and impacts, the Columbine shooting

LITERATURE REVIEW

As pointed out in the previous section, the literature review approach was adopted for the study. The review was wide ranging and considered various aspects of the Columbine shooting. Following this review, a number of key observations were made. These observations include the understanding that the Columbine and other school shootings are the result of the interaction of various complex factors. Another observation made is that many researchers and scholars feel that the immediate response to the Columbine shooting was inadequate and that had law enforcement agencies adopted better techniques, more lives would have been saved. The fact that various solutions for the prevention of school shootings are available is another observation that emerged from the review. These issues are explored at greater length in this chapter.

Causes of Columbine Shooting

Among the issues that have received considerable attention from the research community are the causes of the Columbine shooting. Bullying is among the causes that have featured prominently in research literature. For example, Mears et al. (2017) authored an inspired and engaging text in which they explore the root causes of the shooting. As part of the text, these scholars admit that bullying may have played some role. It is indeed true that Eric and Dylan lamented that they had endured harassment and bullying in the hands of their fellow students. Many believe that the hardship they suffered drove them to commit mass murder. However, as Mears et al. (2017) make it clear, blaming the shooting on bullying is too simplistic and does not fully capture the complex reality of violent crime. According to these scholars, by believing that there is a connection between bullying and school shootings, the US fails to recognize the true causes of the shootings and frustrates efforts to prevent this problem.

Weinhold (2000) also added his voice to the discussion on the causes of the Columbine shooting. His article is particularly insightful as it was published only a year following the shooting. In the article, Weinhold (2000) admits that bullying may have motivated Eric and Dylan. However, as is the case with Mears et al. (2017), Weinhold (2000) also insists that those who blame the shooting entirely on bullying do not have a full understanding of how violent crime develops and occurs. According to Weinhold (2000), the Columbine shooting is a reflection of an American society that perpetuates domination and subjugation and forces the weak to resort to deadly violence. Raitanen et al. (2019) also dismissed bullying as the complex explanation for the Columbine shooting. Following a review of interview responses from participants drawn from 12 different countries, they established that social exclusion is usually at the center of mass-casualty shootings like the Columbine incident. There appears to be consensus among researchers that bullying does not fully account for the Columbine shooting. It is simply a representation of larger problems like social exclusion and victimization that continue to plague American society.

To best understand the origins of the Columbine shooting, one needs to consider issues beyond the US. It is helpful to examine similarly devastating violent incidents that other nations have experienced. Larkin (2009) noted that in Europe, Argentina and Australia, a worrying increase in the incidence of violent and mass-casualty attacks has been witnessed. He goes further to state that the Columbine shooting served as the inspiration for these incidents. According to Larkin (2009), the global impact of the Columbine shooting indicates that this incident was the outcome of complex forces. Among the forces that he identifies include intimidation, social isolation, humiliation, and bullying. In essence, Larkin (2009) agrees that Eric and Dylan drew much of their inspiration from the bullying that they had endured. However, as Larkin (2009) and the other researchers cited above determined, the Columbine shooting must be understood within the broader sociopolitical reality of American society.

Mental illness is another issue that has been cited as among the possible triggers of the Columbine shooting. Henry (2009) is one of the researchers who identify mental illness as among of the causes of the shooting. However, instead of actually demonstrating that Eric and Dylan had been diagnosed with some specific mental illness, Henry (2009) focuses his attention on the prevailing views of the American public at the time of the shooting. According to Henry (2009), in the years before the shooting, mass-casualty incidents had mostly been blamed on developmental and psychosocial problems. Basically, Henry (2009) suggests that the US believed that the Columbine and other mass shootings were the outcome of mental instabilities. Chen et al. (2015) also acknowledged that mental illness may have played some role in the Columbine shooting. However, these scholars indicate that the mental-health associations betray deeper problems in American society. They note that in nearly all shootings where the perpetrators are white, mental illness is often presented as the explanation for their actions. On the other hand, such other issues as terrorism are usually raised when the perpetrator is non-white. Essentially, Henry (20090 and Chen et al. (2015) found that the reasons supplied to explain the Columbine shooting are either inaccurate or so incomplete that they mask the true reasons. However, from the discussions by these researchers, it is reasonable to believe that the Columbine shooting was caused, at least in part, by mental illness.

Easy access to guns is yet another factor that has dominated discussions regarding the causes of the Columbine shooting. Leading the scholars who lament that America’s lax gun laws gave rise to the Columbine incident is Ruback et al. (2011) whose text focuses on the impact that access to guns have on violent crime among juveniles. After a rigorous and extensive examination of data, Ruback et al. (2011) noted that the prevalence of violent crime was higher among juveniles whose homes had firearms. While Eric and Dylan did not obtain the firearms they used from their homes, easy access to weapons played a significant role in the shooting. They were able to engage a friend who purchased the guns. Whereas scholars like Ruback et al. (2011) believe that America’s gun policy set the stage for the Columbine shooting, there are others like Kleck (2009) who contend that blaming the gun laws for mass and school shootings is unwise. Even as he admits that the US needs to implement stricter gun policies, Kleck (2009) faults those who link gun laws to mass shootings, arguing that blaming the gun policies frustrate efforts to tackle gun violence. The disagreement between Ruback (2011) and Kleck (2009) highlight the complexity of mass shootings and violent crime in general. However, despite the lack of consensus among scholars, it is difficult to dismiss US gun laws as a possible driver of the Columbine shooting.

To be complete, any discussion on the Columbine shooting needs to include a discussion of the role that the media played. There are some scholars who believe that the portrayal of violence in the media may have created the conditions that allowed for the shooting to occur. For instance, while insisting that the harassment that Eric and Dylan experienced in school is the primary cause of the shooting, Springball (2006) indicated that the depiction of violence in such media as video games should receive some blame for the shooting. It should be noted that Springball (2006) does not present much evidence to support his assertions. Instead, he relies mostly on the views of other scholars and the perspectives held by many Americans. Schildkraut and Muschert (2013) also found that the media served some function in the Columbine shooting. However, as opposed to Springball (2006) who blames the media directly for the shooting, Schildkraut and Muschert (2013) state that the sensational and biased media coverage of gun violence and mass shootings give rise to an atmosphere that can encourage similar shootings. Essentially, these researchers suggest that the media coverage of shootings motivate perpetrators to pursue notoriety and recognition. The main drawback of the assertions by Schildkraut and Muschert (2013) is that they are not established on primary research; they are based on theoretical assumptions and beliefs. However, even with this drawback, the discussion that Schildkraut and Muschert (2013) engaged in sheds light on the origins of the Columbine and other school shootings.

Antecedents and Response to Columbine Shooting

Further and deeper insights into the causes of the Columbine shooting can be seen in how law enforcement agencies responded to this incident. As Frazzano and Snyder (2014) reports, the police received condemnation and criticism for their slow, inadequate and ineffective response. These researchers proceed to describe how the protocols that the law enforcement agencies had in place frustrated their capacity to contain the incident and prevent death. According to Frazzano and Snyder (2014), the protocols provided Dylan and Eric the opportunity to commit mass murder without hindrance. After an evaluation of the response, Mell and Sztajnkrycer (2004) also judged it to be inadequate and too slow. In their text, they shed particular light on the multi-agency emergency response team that handled the incident. Mell and Sztajnkrycer (2004) lament that this team was not adequately trained and that the agencies that made up the team were unable to collaborate seamlessly. As a result, the team failed to mount a unified and effective response, affording Dylan and Eric the time they needed to kill their fellow students and one of the teachers at Columbine, while injuring many others. From the articles by the authors cited here, it can be argued that Eric and Dylan engaged in a cost-benefit analysis as rational individuals who then chose to proceed with their attack after determining that a robust security system that could thwart their plan was absent.

The security situation at the Columbine High School before the attack offers further insights into the factors that may have motivated Dylan and Eric. In his report on the changes that schools have implemented in the wake of the Columbine shooting, Fattal (2019) noted that before the shooting, Columbine High School and most other schools across the US lacked tight security measures. The absence of these measures is not surprising given that American schools had not faced serious security threats in previous years. King and Bracy (2019) also established that the Columbine High School lacked robust security systems and measures that could have dissuaded Eric and Dylan against proceeding with their plot. In essence, the experts who blame the lack of tough security measures suggest that Dylan and Eric must have been motivated by the absence of serious deterrents. It is plausible that had Columbine High School adopted such measures as positioning heavily armed security guards at its gates, the shooting would have been prevented and lives saved.

Remedies

In the years after the Columbine shooting, a number of remedies and interventions have been implemented as part of a campaign to boost school security and tackle mass shootings. Birkland and Lawrence (2009) addressed some of these interventions in their article. After noting that the Columbine shooting mirrored serious national problems that afflicted the US, the two scholars identify discussions within the American public regarding the need for tougher security measures in schools as among the outcomes of the Columbine shooting. Furthermore, according to Birkland and Lawrence (2009), hundreds of schools across the country implemented a raft of security measures. For example, these scholars report that the schools took steps to improve discipline. Furthermore, as Birkland and Lawrence (2009) established, in response to the Columbine shooting, there was renewed focus and interest in the mental health of students. This measure suggests that American schools began to recognize the mental health underpinnings of violent and gun crime. By responding to the mental health needs of learners, schools essentially hoped to eliminate the causes of violent behavior and aggression.

Reforms in how the police responded to mass shootings are another remedy that the US adopted as a consequence of the Columbine shooting. When responding to the Columbine shooting, the police adopted a rather slow and ineffective approach. They would essentially clear one room after another. The shooting has allowed the police to learn that most active-shooter situations are best handled through the prioritization of the elimination of the threat (Sanchez, 2018). Essentially, the police now attempt to identify and neutralize the shooter as soon as possible. This change in strategy shows that law enforcement officials now understand that to save lives, they should focus on eliminating the opportunities that allow for violent crime to take place. Through such programs as Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training, police officers and other law enforcement agents are being equipped to better respond to active shooter incidents (Sanchez, 2018). There is no question that while it remains regrettable and tragic, the Columbine shooting offered valuable lessons for law enforcement. These lessons are now being incorporated into the design of more effective interventions and strategies.

Synopsis

Above, the paper has presented the views of various scholars regarding different aspects of the Columbine shooting. One of the issues that have emerged from the literature is that the Columbine incident has been highly divisive. The research and academic communities have been unable to agree on any element of this shooting. For example, on the question of what caused Eric and Dylan to go on the shooting rampage, there is no consensus. While some researchers believe that the experience of bullying and harassment gave rise to deep resentment and frustration that fueled the immense anger and hate that the two perpetrators exhibited, others feel that the Columbine shooting was a symptom of a larger social problem in the US. According to these scholars, the shooting represented deeply-rooted issues like the gun culture in the country as well as unmet developmental and mental health needs of young Americans. There are other scholars who feel that the Columbine incident was the result of failure by American schools to invest adequate resources and effort in security. While the differences in the views of the researchers frustrate efforts to find consensus, they are crucial as they indicate that school shootings are complex, multi-faced, and difficult to fully understand. Further research is clearly needed to conclusively establish the origins of school shootings.

Another issue that the literature review has yielded is that generally, the US has adopted a reactionary approach to school security and responding to violent crime. Instead of being proactive, the US takes action only after such an incident as the Columbine shooting has occurred. As the human cost of the Columbine shooting showed, the reactionary approach is dangerous and ineffective. It is indeed unfortunate that even after the Columbine massacre, the US has not implemented advanced techniques for predicting and responding to violent incidents before they occur. It is therefore little wonder that mass shootings are becoming an increasingly common feature of the American experience. If the US is to succeed in keeping its schools and communities safe, it should move with speed to replace traditional and outdated approaches with more modern techniques which account for the socio-political underpinnings of violent crime.

Theoretical Framework

The various insights that have emerged from published research literature can be used to develop a theoretical framework that helps to explain why school shootings occur. Deterrence is among the frameworks that can shed light on the forces that fueled the Columbine shooting perpetrators. At its core, the deterrence theory holds that when individuals fear that they will suffer punishment, they are more likely to follow established rules and guidelines (Kennedy, 2012). For example, the threat of a lengthy prison sentence can be an effective deterrent against criminal behavior. When applied to the Columbine shooting, the deterrence theory suggests that since they faced no significant deterrents, the perpetrators were even more motivated to maim and injure. For example, as noted earlier, at the time of the shooting, Columbine High School had not instituted any serious security measures that could have convinced the perpetrators to abandon their plot. Therefore, the deterrence theory is a valid tool for understanding how mass shootings occur.

Further evidence of the validity of the deterrence theory can be seen in the various interventions that Columbine High School and other schools in the US instituted in response to the shooting. For example, as discussed earlier, schools have adopted more stringent security policies and measures. It can be argued that the purpose of these measures is to serve as deterrents. For example, consider an armed individual planning to attack a school. After learning that the school is heavily fortified, the individual is likely to select a less secured target or abandon their plot entirely. This example illustrates how the deterrence theory can be used as a framework for designing solutions for tackling various types of crime.

While the deterrence theory could hold the key to preventing such incidents as the Columbine shooting, it is important to recognize that this theory has some limitations. Among its main drawbacks is that it does not explain why crimes can remain prevalent even when deterrence measures have been put in place. For example, in a previous section, it was pointed out that the Columbine shooting has prompted schools to adopt improved security protocols. One would expect that with these protocols in place, the US would report fewer violent crimes and mass shootings. Unfortunately, this expectation is inconsistent with the reality in the country. After the Columbine incident, the US has experienced many more mass shootings that have caused untold suffering and devastation. The inadequacy of the deterrence theory indicates that such crimes as school shootings are so complex that no single theory can fully explain them.

DISCUSSION

Practical Implications

The research on the Columbine shooting presents a number of important practical implications. One, the research could serve as the foundation for gaining deeper and clearer insights into the root causes of violent crime in the US. For example, from the research, it is evident that a combination of the harassment of students, the availability of guns, the absence of security measures in schools, and the failure by law enforcement agencies to respond to security incidents with greater effectiveness is behind mass shootings. Two, the research could be used to design more effective solutions for keeping schools safer. For example, law enforcement agents could work with mental health professionals to identify students and other young individuals who are at risk of being drawn into violent crime. Three, the present study could function as a catalyst for sober and inclusive discussions regarding the future of gun laws in the US. Currently, these discussions have failed to yield much progress because Americans are deeply divided on the necessity of gun control. Since this study is based mostly on verifiable and valid research, it could help Americans to have serious conversations about the importance of introducing tougher restrictions on gun sales and ownership.

Conclusions

The Columbine shooting remains one of the most tragic and darkest moments in the US. It led to needless death and left many families in grief. However, despite its adverse outcomes, the shooting has also provided the research community with an opportunity to explore the complexities of violent crime and the politics surrounding mental health and gun control. The research that has been carried out on this shooting suggests that a number of factors interacted to generate the force that motivated the shooting’s perpetrators. Some of the factors that have been implicated include mental illness and the ease with which the perpetrators were able to obtain dangerous weapons. These factors demonstrate that to insulate American students against harm, solutions that address the various underlying causes of mass shootings are needed. It is hereby proposed that in designing these solutions, the law enforcement agencies in the US should join forces with other stakeholders such as mental health and education practitioners.

References 

Birkland, T. A., & Lawrence, R. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52 (10), 1405-25.

DeFoster, R. (2010). American gun culture, school shootings, and a “frontier mentality”: an ideological analysis of British editorial pages in the decades after Columbine. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3 (4), 466-84.

Fattal, I. (2019). High school was different before Columbine. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/before-columbine-what-was-high-school-like/587527/ 

Frazzano, T. L., & Snyder, G. M. (2014). Hybrid targeted violence: challenging conventional “active shooter” response strategies. Homeland Security Affairs, 10 (3), 1-10.

Henry, S. (2009). School violence beyond Columbine: a complex problem in need of an interdisciplinary analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 52 (9), 1246-65.

Hong, J. S., Cho, H., Allen-Meares, P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). The social ecology of the Columbine High School shootings. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (6), 861-8.

King, S., & Bracy, N. L. (2019). School security in the post-Columbine era: trends, consequences, and future directions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35 (3), 274-95.

Jonson, C. L. (2017). Preventing school shootings: the effectiveness of safety measures. Victims & Offenders, 12 (6), 956-73.

Kennedy, D. M. (2012). Deterrence and crime prevention: reconsidering the prospect of sanction. London: Routledge.

Larkin, R. W. (2009). The Columbine legacy: rampage shootings as political acts. American Behavioral Scientist, 52 (9), 1309-26.

Mears, D. P., Moon, M. M., & Thielo, A. J. (2017). Columbine revisited: myths and realities about the bullying-school shootings connection. Victims & Offenders, 12 (6), 939-55.

Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. T. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 105 (2), 240-9.

Raitanen, J., Sandberg, S., & Oksanen, A. (2017). The bullying-school shooting nexus: Bridging master narratives of mass violence with personal narratives of social exclusion. Deviant Behavior, 40 (1), 96-109.

Ruback, R. B., Shaffer, N. J., & Clark, V. A. (2011). Easy access to firearms: juveniles’ risks for violent offending and violent victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26 (10), 2111-38.

Sanchez, R. (2018). How Columbine changed the way police respond to mass shootings . CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-shooting-columbine-lessons/index.html 

Springball, J. (2006). Violent media, guns and moral panics: The Columbine High School shooting massacre, 20 April 1999. Pedogica Historica, 35 (3), 621-41.

Mell, H., & Sztajnkrycer, M. (2004). EMS response to Columbine: lessons learned. The Internet Journal of Rescue and Disaster Medicine, 5 (1), 1-10.

Weinhold, B. K. (2000). Bullying and school violence: the tip of the iceberg. The Teacher Educator, 35 (3), 28-33.