The Columbine Massacre Wasn’t All Bad? What?

I just had a bizarre instant messenger conversation with Andrew Ian Dodge of Dodgeblogium. It started when he referred me to this post on his page. Here’s an excerpt from what he said that caught my attention…

“Let’s put it this way, while I don’t condone what the Columbine killers did, I perfectly understand why they targeted jocks. If you are being tormented, which they were, routinely, you go after the source of your torment, right?

The British have a much healthier system for all of this. You are much less likely to be messed about with by jocks at British universities or schools than you are in the US. Of course, in the UK, they value intellectual capacity far more than in the US. It is not “uncool” to be intelligent. Jocks are a major blight on the education system in the US, and something needs to be done about it.

Question: If some moron jock is using his uber-strength body to torture and abuse you, is it not fair that you use some kind of weapon to defend yourself?”

Here’s our instant messenger conversation edited just a bit for grammar, clarity, & brevity’s sake. I think it speaks for itself…

John Hawkins: Ehr — so you’re defending the Columbine killers?

Lagwolf: No, but I understand why they targeted some of the people they did. That was were they two of them erred.

John Hawkins: So they didn’t err in targeting the jocks?

Lagwolf: No, if they targeted their tormentors I think it was harsh justice.

John Hawkins: Dude — I think that’s nuts.

Lagwolf: Why? You think its right for people to stoned, beaten and bottled cause they are different? That is what happened to those guys and the authorities did nothing about it.

John Hawkins: They shot and killed people including jocks who may or may not have done anything to them. Even if they were cruel to them it doesn’t merit going on a shooting spree.

Lagwolf: Yes they killed innocent people which was wrong…but if any of those they killed were responsible for their torment then I do not feel sorry for them. It does not justify killing innocents no. That was wrong. Why is it that its alright for a jock to beat this sh*t out of a brain, but if she grabs a weapon and retaliates it’s wrong?

John Hawkins: So the appropriate response to say a wedgie is a bullet in the head in your opinion?

Lagwolf: No…read the history of Columbine. Those guys had stones and bottles thrown and them and were routinely beaten up. As I said I don’t condone what those two did but I understand the motivation. Look at the question I ask at the end of the post…what is your response? People in that situation should go tattle and get beaten on worse?

John Hawkins: These kids weren’t defending themselves from anything. They just walked in and shot a bunch of people. They did get bullied, but to the best of my knowledge no one ever established that any of the people they killed bullied them. Even if some of victims did bully them that doesn’t justify walking in a few days later and putting a bullet in them.

Lagwolf: I disagree…

John Hawkins: Fight back when you’re attacked, go tattle, don’t go on a shooting rampage — that’s CRAZY.

Lagwolf: No the shooting rampage was wrong…I said that. Go tattle..come on…give me a f*cking break that is way the get hurt even worse. The principal and the teachers were as responsible for that as the shooters.

John Hawkins: You seem to be condoning the fact that they shot some of those people if they ever bullied Klebold & Harris …

Lagwolf: Yes…if I am a 90 pound weakling facing a 220lb jock…a firearm is a good even if no one does anything about it.

John Hawkins: That is like raving moonbat, Indy Media on their worst day, insane dude….

Lagwolf: You were obviously never bullied or had the sh*t kicked out of you. I am just saying I understand the hatred in side of them…not what they did. This bullying and abuse is a normal part of growing up is total BS.

John Hawkins: Actually I did get bullied and once I got mean enough to get into to fistfights with the bullies and that was the end of that. But in any case, having someone bully you on Monday is not cause for walking in on Wednesday and shooting them in the face.

Lagwolf: See you miss the point…the didn’t do this over a week…it was systematic abuse over many years. The trouble is that in the US bullying is seen as normal and a part of growing up. It’s not…any teacher or administrator that allows it to go on is guilty of grievous bodily harm.

John Hawkins: So clear this up for me, if someone punches you in the arm on Monday, are you justified in shooting them in the face on Friday?

Lagwolf: No…if some beats the sh*t out of you on Monday and has done it several times before and no ones cares…yeah shooting them is fine. Is there no right to self defense?

John Hawkins: Can I put this conversation up on RWN with a link back to the original article?

Lagwolf: Yeah…fine.

Lagwolf: I don’t think you fully understand my position. I think anyone who is routinely pummeled and does not have any regress in the admin has the right to find a weapon to even the score. I am not condoning gang fights. I am talking about someone who gets the sh*t kicked out them all the time. This happens…I have seen it and been part of it.

John Hawkins: My personal opinion is that if you get the sh*t kicked out of you all time then you better learn to fight — you don’t shoot people over it.

Lagwolf: No that is wrong. Some people cant learn to fight…You are talking Lord of the Flies.

John Hawkins: So how far do we go back here? There are bullies in elementary school as well. Should the seven year-olds start blowing away kids who are mean to them?

Lagwolf: No. Alright let me make this clear. 1. bullying should not be allowed to happen ever.

John Hawkins: That’s not real life. There is going to be bullying.

Lagwolf: 2. Any teacher or admin who knows about bullying and does not do anything should be liable for grievous bodily harm.

John Hawkins: But didn’t you say earlier that people shouldn’t inform teachers or admins about being bullied? How are they supposed to know about it?

Lagwolf: Be observant? I mean everyone knows. They interviewed all kinds of students at Columbine and they all knew that lot were bullied mercilessly. 3. If someone of increased strength…as in a jock uses this against someone with no strength, the person with no strength should allowed to use weapons to defend himself.

John Hawkins: So knifing someone is an appropriate response to a wedgie?

Lagwolf: No…Again, that is what you seem to be saying. Wait…WTF I keep talking about beating the sh*t out of someone and you say wedgie? Ehr WTF? I mean physical pummeling…which is exactly what happened to the Columbine murderers…and has happened to me.

John Hawkins: Ok, some big jock punches someone in the shoulder, is it appropriate to knife them?

Lagwolf: Yeah, if they do lots of times…yes. Their body is their weapon so why is it wrong to arm oneself?

John Hawkins: If they do it 5 or 6 times, is it appropriate to walk in and shoot them in the face?

Lagwolf: What do have against people defending themselves? You seem to ally yourself with abusive bully? I am not talking wedgies I am talking actual physical abuse. Beating the sh*t out of someone.

John Hawkins: You seem to be advocating Columbine massacres in every high school in America…

Lagwolf: No I am not. I am advocating that anyone who is facing overwhelming odds in abuse can counter with a weapon.

John Hawkins: There are bullies in ALMOST EVERY American high school who systematically pummel kids. You’re saying it’s fine for those victims to walk in one day and waste their bullies with a gun. Hence, you’re advocating thousands and thousands of murders.

Lagwolf: Yeah. The fact that the Columbine killings were random are the major problem. However, if a few of them are killed the bullying will stop quick.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend