Kleck's "No Lessons from Littleton": Summary and Critique

Introduction

The times in which we live are highly turbulent, for young and old people alike. Unfortunately, the turmoil of modern life and the toll it takes on those who are all too human and vulnerable results, at times, in violent and deadly outbursts. One prominent example is the 1999 school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, during which two students went on a murder spree in their own high school, killing many of their fellow classmates and teachers, wounding many others, and leaving everyone wondering why the tragedy had to take place — and what could be done to prevent such an event from occurring again.

While the popular response was to extract every possible lesson or warning from the Littleton massacre, one writer, Gary Kleck, put forth the idea that there is not much to be gained from analyzing this single event. This argument was presented in his essay "There Are No Lessons to Be Learned from Littleton," published in Criminal Justice Ethics. The following paper summarizes and critiques Kleck's essay in an effort to better understand his viewpoint and assess its validity. Upon conclusion, not only will the essay be more fully explained, but the underlying issues it raises will be examined as well.

"There Are No Lessons to Be Learned from Littleton" is part history lesson, part social commentary, and can fairly be categorized as a work of criminal justice and social research. It must be understood, however, that Kleck's essay — while discussing the events of the Littleton mass murder — is not accurately summarized simply as an essay about that case. It would be more accurate to say that Kleck uses Littleton as a launching pad for his broader arguments. Written with Littleton as its starting point, the essay examines what caused that shooting, and other school shootings like it, to occur.

Summary of Kleck's Argument

Many readers might assume the essay blames the commonly cited causes for such crimes, but that is clearly not the case. The best illustration of this appears when Kleck collects all of the "usual suspects" blamed for such atrocities and dismisses them wholesale:

"A partial list of the problems that have been blamed for the recent mass killings in schools would include: guns, 'assault weapons,' large-capacity ammunition magazines, lax regulation of gun shows; the failure of parents to secure guns, school cliques, and the exclusion of 'outsiders'; bullying and taunting in schools, especially by high school athletes; inadequate school security, especially a lack of metal detectors, armed guards, locker searches, and so forth; excessively large high schools; inadequate monitoring of potentially violent students by schools; lazy, uninvolved Baby Boomer parents and correspondingly inadequate supervision of their children; young killers not being eligible for the death penalty; a lack of religion, especially in schools; violent movies and television; violent video games; violent material and communications on the World Wide Web/Internet (including bomb-making instructions); anti-Semitism, neo-Nazi sentiments, and Hitler worship; 'Industrial' music, Marilyn Manson's music, and other 'dark' variants of rock music; Satanism; 'Goth' culture among adolescents; and Southern culture" (Kleck).

Kleck's Key Points Against Common Explanations

As soon as Kleck highlights these possible causes, he dismisses all of them en masse, based on several key arguments that he then presents.

The first argument Kleck presents against easily identified causes for Littleton and other incidents is that in the aftermath of something so terrible and unexpected, people are likely to be emotionally charged, confused, and angry. All of this leads to an incorrect diagnosis of the causes of seemingly senseless violence (Kleck). In other words, knee-jerk reactions that occur after the fact can — and in this case do — get falsely validated.

Second, Kleck uses documented statistics to demonstrate that, despite indications to the contrary in popular culture, gun violence had been decreasing steadily in the years leading up to Littleton. Furthermore, the violent events that did occur rarely happened in schools and rarely involved multiple victims. Therefore, Kleck argues that the assumption of a growing epidemic of mass gun murders by young people against their own school populations is factually false.

Third, Kleck makes the point that laws passed in the aftermath of Littleton — intended to tighten control on guns, gun shows, and violent acts committed on school grounds — do little to make a meaningful difference. These laws, he argues, previously existed in one form or another and did not prevent any of the events that eventually took place.

Lastly, Kleck reinforces his position that the Littleton shooting, and similar shootings that preceded it, should not be the primary focus of analysis. Rather, he maintains that by concentrating on these exceptional events, efforts to closely monitor individuals who are genuinely likely to commit violent crimes with guns are being sacrificed. Attention is being consumed by Littleton when it should remain on other individuals against whom there is solid, actionable suspicion of future gun violence.

To summarize Kleck's overall argument: Littleton was an atypical event of gun violence that should not be overanalyzed as the beginning of a trend or treated as something likely to repeat itself regularly. While time is spent micromanaging the lessons of Littleton, more important preventive work goes undone. Though Kleck's argument has merit, it is equally valid to subject his work to critical scrutiny.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important to understand that all events, perhaps, need to be viewed as interrelated. Without learning from the past, we are likely to be ill-prepared for the future. While Kleck raises legitimate concerns about the misdirection of public attention and policy energy after high-profile school shootings, completely setting aside the lessons of Littleton risks repeating its tragedy. A more balanced approach — one that neither overreacts to a single atypical event nor dismisses it outright — would serve the interests of both sound criminological research and meaningful violence prevention.