Reddit reviews Columbine

Actually this book on the Columbine shooting: https://www.amazon.com/Columbine-Dave-Cullen-ebook/dp/B0024NP4NO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497461170&sr=8-1&keywords=columbine

Goes into detail about not only the shooters but the area. Harris was a military brat. The area was also one of the "hot spots" in the late 90's for conservative evangelical Christianity.

But keep trying to pin a blame on people who don't look at the world like you do instead of understanding there are crazies on either side and rhetoric like yours feeds them.

you should check out dave cullen's columbine, which took him ten years to research and write. phenomenally detailed book, I recommend it!

A Mother’s Reckoning
by Sue Klebold. Info about charity donations here. I recommend that anyone interested in this topic should read that, Columbine by Dave Cullen, and No Easy Answers by Brooks Brown.

I was in high school at the time of Columbine, and believed many of these myths. This book really opened my eyes and shifted my viewpoint away from what the mainstream media was saying.

Just a reminder about the following resources available on campus:

Behavior Concerns Advice Line (BCAL) for looking out for someone you know.

24-hour Couseling and Mental Health Center Crisis Line for yourself.

--------

Also, if I learned anything reading Columbine by Dave Cullen, released 10 years after the shooting, it's that media 'facts' will likely be entirely incorrect with many false conclusions. Be wary about what you read.

--------

Do not post NSFL/NSFW/gore without disclaimers. Please report any posts that violate this.

Out of respect for the families, no personally identifiable information permitted at the moment, including pictures, names, etc. Please report any posts that violate this.

Also, now is not the time for you to air your race or fraternity grievances.

I recommend everyone read Columbine by David Cullen. Not only is it definitive on the subject, it is an encompassing explanation of how media operates in crisis.

In the example of this shooting in Canada, as a parallel, one party reports that it's a muslim shooter, so other bodies get frantic and report the same thing. Only when there is an official statement (or a definitive, hindsight report once the dust has settled) from law enforcement, can we really know the facts.

For example, in the Columbine shooting, there were initial reports on how there were more than two shooters. That is because these initial reports came from people leaving the campus and single eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Obviously, there were two shooters, but in the mayhem it may have seemed like more.

Conspiracy theorists see this type of misreporting as a clear cover-up, when in fact the media is just delivering the news in the best, fastest way possible as being the party that "breaks" is very sought-after in the industry. Do not attribute to malice what is normally a mistake. This is what conspiracy theorists get wrong time and time again. It is bad research to fall into this trap.

I'm guessing you've read Dave Cullen's Columbine, right? It's been sort of considered the final word on the Columbine shooting, and for good reason.

I too had an ever-present interest in the shooting, largely because I lived in Littleton at the time. Although I didn't attend the high school, it was still a bizarre, unsettling day for 8 year old me. Reading Columbine really put a lot of my questions and qualms regarding Harris and Klebold to rest.