Overall, what Kleck is saying is that knee-jerk reactions that happen after the fact can, and in this case do, get falsely validated. Second, Kleck uses solid data in the form of documented statistics to show that despite indications to the contrary on the part of the popular culture, it is a fact that gun violence has been decreasing steadily in recent years, those events of gun related violence that do occur rarely happen in schools, and also rarely involve multiple numbers of victims. Therefore, Kleck is saying that the assumption that there is a growing epidemic of mass gun murders on the part of young people against their own school populations is false.

Third, Kleck makes the point that laws passed in the aftermath of Littleton, meant to tighten control on guns, gun shows, and violent acts committed on school grounds do little to make a difference in any case, because these laws previously existed in one form or another and did not stop any of the events that took place eventually anyhow.

Lastly, Kleck reinforces his point that the Littleton shootings, and other similar shootings which took place before Littleton are not the actual point that should be looked at; rather, Kleck maintains, in looking at these events which are exceptions rather than the rule, the efforts to closely monitor people who are profiled as being most likely to commit violent crimes with guns are being sacrificed because everyone is distracted by Littleton when they should in fact still be watching other individuals whom they have solid suspicions will in fact commit gun crimes in the near future.

Overall, to summarize Kleck's essay, what he is saying is that Littleton is an atypical event of gun violence, should not be overanalyzed as the beginning of a trend or something that is likely to continue with abandon in the future, and while time is wasted in micromanaging Littleton, other more important evidence and useful activities to prevent gun violence are not taking place as they should. While Kleck's

However, just as Kleck's work has validity, it also has some areas that can fairly be critiqued.
First, Kleck seems to be taking an "all or nothing" attitude in saying that studying Littleton is not very valuable because of other more prominent examples of gun violence, possible prevention, and so forth. It would be more proper to take the position that Littleton was a tremendous tragedy, not only because of the large number of casualties, but also because the victims were young and innocent- the cornerstones of future generations. if, as Kleck maintains, we ignore such events and do not try to learn something from them, it is not a far stretch to say that we are throwing away our future for the sake of expediency. Additionally, what is not to say that if efforts are made to identify and help troubled youth, that the effort of doing the same for adults, who are actually in many cases troubled from their youth, would not also be aided? Overall, the critique of Kleck can be summed up as such: his points are valid, but he too misses the mark on many points.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important to understand that all events, perhaps, need to be viewed as interrelated, and if not, the consequences could be severe. Without learning from the past, we will likely be doomed for the future.

Works Cited

Kleck, Gary. "There Are No Lessons to Be Learned from Littleton." Criminal Justice Ethics 18.1 (1999): 2.

Gary Kleck