Columbine Shooter's Parents Speak

[WFFC 1]

Just for grins, since I hadn't ever seen the movie, but lived through Columbine that day - 65% of the people that worked for my employer at the time had kids in Columbine. Luckily, none physically injured.

Quote

But we know that the "cold dead hands" speech was given in North Carolina, not Colorado, and not the next week but 9 months later.

Not sure who originally did the 'from my cold dead hand' saying, but Heston did have a different suit on than the rest of his speech. This segment, you are correct, was not shot at the same time as his speech in CO after Columbine. Now, do the research and contact the NRA and ask them if Mr. Heston was originally scheduled to speak then or not. Keep in mind that this is a film. The 'my cold dead hand' was for artistic representation. It drives the point of the NRA and was done so in the best way possible, by their spokesman. He's probably said the same thing other places. He may have very well said it in Denver, but the snipet of video in the film was not shot there.

Quote

Watch the film: is that the impression that the lying sack of shit Moore works toward giving?

No. Added for dramatic affect.

Quote

Demonstrating how Moore UTTERLY LIED about the way in which one acquires a rifle from the bank that gives them away for purchasing a certificate of deposit is not "hitting any of them"? How is the exposure of an outright LIE not a good criticism of Bowling for Columbine??

Again, dramatic affect. Bottom line, the bank does give guns away for opening CDs, does it not? The clerk in the film clearly states that they are a licensed dealer (they may not be, but use a local dealer as a clearing house). Again, you can open a CD at said bank and get a gun, if you pass the mandatory background checks.

Quote

Why did Moore walk out the door of the bank holding his new rifle triumphantly, as though he were handed the rifle inside the bank? Why did he not make clear to his audience that he had to pass all the legally required background checks, and select and acquire his rifle at a completely different location? Answer: Moore lies. Moore likes to twist reality to give whatever impression he prefers to give, regardless of how that impression squares with actual reality.

No, dramatic affect. Moore apparently doesn't have anything in his record that would prevent him from obtaining a gun. It's easier to put the pieces together in the bank. Again, bottom line: Open a CD, pass the background check, get a gun.
The bank employees clearly stated in the film that he would have to pass a background check.

Quote

I'll give you a hint. That big rocket in the background was a Titan IV rocket. If there ever was a weapon of mass destruction, that would be it. Not only was the Titan IV made in Littleton Colorado, it was designed there, too.

Why would you deny that? I mean.... did you even see the movie?

I'm surprised you're denying Heston said what he did. If I were a proud American gun-owner (I'm neither), I would be glad to have such an outspoken spokesman. BTW - there is no evidence - anywhere, that anyone who doesn't wear a tinfoil hat would believe, to indicated any abnormal editing on either his speech or interview.

Titan Rocket Family described Titan II appears to have been used exclusively for ICBMs, Titan III and IV for military payloads (read spy satellites). If there were another other use for them, I was not able to quickly find one.

Quote

Um, not except for the fact that Heston is wearing two different motherfucking suits in the shots of him.

one suit for 'cold dead hand' remark, same suit for the rest of his speech. Please relax with the deragatories.

Quote

Not except for the fact that transcripts of the speeches show utterly different context from what is shown in the clips in B.F.C.

Please post transcripts.

Quote

How fuckin' confused are you?!

Not at all.

Quote

So you attached the ad that the bank ran, offering the rifles to customers... And? No one is arguing that the bank didn't make the rifle offer. If you bothered to understand my post, you'd know that the issue is that Moore makes direct commentary on the "dangerous" idea of giving away guns in a bank -- BUT THE BANK DOESN'T [I]DO[/I] THAT. One does not pick up the rifle at the bank: one has to acquire it at a gun shop. It's like being given a voucher. So when Moore depicts himself getting his rifle AT the BANK and walking out with it, THAT IS STAGED: IT IS *BULLSHIT*. It's proof of Moore's penchant for distorting the way things are in favor of making them seem to support his thesis.

Dramatic affect. Bottom line, open a CD, pass the background check, get a gun. Right?

Michael

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Um, not except for the fact that Heston is wearing two different motherfucking suits in the shots of him.

Not except for the fact that transcripts of the speeches show utterly different context from what is shown in the clips in B.F.C.

Please post transcripts.

Here is a link to where I found a side-by-side comparison -- color coded to show what was edited together -- of the speech Heston gave, and the speech as Moore's movie alleges it went:

Comparison of Heston speech/BFC edit

It is on a link from This page

There, I've done the work for you. All you have to do is go to the first site and see the color-coded segments that indicate what was taken from what parts of the speech in, and spliced together to seem as though it was contiguous. Moore's editing amounts to taking, "I couldn't imagine how someone could like raping small children," and turning it into, "I ... like raping small children."

See next post for other stuff I just found.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

This is from a Google search result. Apparently, it's a post of some column Roger Ebert, the film critic, writes.

Reproduced below:

By ROGER EBERT

Q. I was the "Bowling for Columbine" producer who scouted the bank that gives you a gun. I was there for Michael Moore's only and entire visit to the bank and was dismayed to see you repeating an outright lie about this scene. Mike walked into North County Bank and walked out with a gun in less than an hour. He opened a CD account, they faxed in his check, it came back all clear, and a bank official handed him his rifle. The crew, Mike and I then drove to directly the barber shop where Mike bought the bullets for his new rifle just as you see in the film. All this occurred before lunch that day, the final day of filming. Then everyone flew home. Maybe you ought to expose the origin of this lie rather than repeat this easily refuted fabrication.

Jeff Gibbs,
Traverse City, Mich.


A. I am happy to oblige. It originated at

www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html ?id=110003233

[note from Jeffrey: I tried this link and it does not work anymore. Sorry.]

Of the bank incident Gibbs mentions, author John Fund writes:

"Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. 'What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing,' she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. 'Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period,' she says."

I asked Michael Moore about this report. His response: "I walked in cold. It happened exactly as you see in the film. A producer did call ahead and said I wanted to come in. It is not true that an ordinary person could not have walked in and gotten a gun. No need to go to a gun shop; they had 500 guns in their vault. There's a 2001 story in the St. Petersburg Times about how the bank is proud as a peacock about its gun offer."

Another critical analysis of the film is at

www.hardylaw.net/Truth?186-143?About?186-143?Bowling.html

On this site, David T. Hardy, a lawyer associated with the National Rifle Assn., raises questions about the accuracy and fairness of many sequences in the movie. One point he makes is that "Bowling for Columbine" misquotes a plaque on a B-52 bomber at the Air Force Academy. Hardy writes: "Moore solemnly pronounces that the plaque under it 'proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972'...The plaque actually reads, 'Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of "Diamond Lil" shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during "Linebacker II" action on Christmas eve 1972.' "

Moore's response: "I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing."

I think here he is fudging. Few audience members would have considered it a paraphrase. It would also appear that his depiction of a Charlton Heston speech is less than accurate. You can compare the "Bowling for Columbine" verison at

http://ufies.org/archives/000586.html

with this transcript of Heston's original speech:

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/meeting99/hestsp1.html

I sometimes suspect that Moore takes as his motto these words by Huck Finn about an earlier book in which Huck figured: "That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth."

Moore told me: "I don't know what category to put my films in. They're like a film version of the op-ed page, and not a traditional documentary. They are cinematic essays presenting my point of view. I may be right or wrong, but if I state something as a fact, I need the viewers to trust that those facts are correct."

The debate about specific facts in "Bowling for Columbine" has grown in such intensity and attention to detail that it requires the dedication of a Kennedy assassination buff. The Answer Man recommends you read both of the sites above, as well as michaelmoore.com, where he says he is posting a point-by-point reply to his critics, complete with documents, affidavits, etc. I also recommend that Moore preface his next film with the quote from Mark Twain.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

[quotation]
I asked Michael Moore about this report. His response: "I walked in cold. It happened exactly as you see in the film. A producer did call ahead and said I wanted to come in. It is not true that an ordinary person could not have walked in and gotten a gun. No need to go to a gun shop; they had 500 guns in their vault. There's a 2001 story in the St. Petersburg Times about how the bank is proud as a peacock about its gun offer."

So the first oddity about this is that we're in Illinois, which is generally as retrictive or more so than California. We don't have instant check here, we have a 10 day waiting period. Used to be 15. Illinois is better, but it's still:

Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after application for purchase is made. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police.

I don't think a bank qualifies as a gun show, and certainly it would mean that any resident of Illinois would have to come back the next day. I didn't think a non resident could buy a gun in any state, but apparently that is at least a bit inaccurate.

[WFFC 1]

Quote

Moore's editing amounts to taking, "I couldn't imagine how someone could like raping small children," and turning it into, "I ... like raping small children."

I get the same from the short speech as I did from the long speech. The editing was done for time obviously, but the message, at least to me, is the same.

[WFFC 1]

Quote

On this site, David T. Hardy, a lawyer associated with the National Rifle Assn., raises questions about the accuracy and fairness of many sequences in the movie. One point he makes is that "Bowling for Columbine" misquotes a plaque on a B-52 bomber at the Air Force Academy. Hardy writes: "Moore solemnly pronounces that the plaque under it 'proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972'...The plaque actually reads, 'Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of "Diamond Lil" shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during "Linebacker II" action on Christmas eve 1972.' "

Moore's response: "I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing."

I think here he is fudging. Few audience members would have considered it a paraphrase.

Quote

In his 1832 book On War, Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz described war as "continuation of politics by other means." Nowhere was this better illustrated than in the December 1972 bombing raids, dubbed "Linebacker II," on Hanoi in North Vietnam. They were ordered by President Richard Nixon in response to North Vietnam’s exit from peace talks in Paris. Seeing popular and congressional support for the war dwindling, Nixon had hoped that the talks would yield a peace settlement by the end of the year and that the United States could leave Vietnam gracefully. He had to show North Vietnam he would not stand for a delay in negotiations. But Nixon also had to assure the South Vietnamese that the U.S. commitment to them would continue after the departure of American troops. And this had to be done before Congress reconvened in January, when it was certain to cut off funds for the war, effectively ending it. Consequently, Nixon ordered three days of bomber strikes on North Vietnam’s cities, which would be extended if Hanoi still did not return to the talks.

(Source)

Two sides, but the same explanation. One side reads the plaque for the words, the other side for the ultimate actions. Sure, the plane shot down an enemy fighter, but was it's mission not to carpet bomb Hanoi? The plaque states the 'glory', Moore states the reality. He's not necessarily grasping, just reading into the words on the plaque.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Could you please bring this back around so it addresses the fact that Moore admits portraying a QUOTATION of the plaque in his movie, but that he was "paraphrasing" when asked later on about the, um, "non-verbatim" nature of the "quote."

I don't know what your quote there was intended to demonstrate.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[crozby 0]

I think you should watch the movie. You might find that you really like it.

[WFFC 1]

The B-52 in the movie was involved with 'Linebacker II' during the Vietnam war - The quote is a quick description of what Linebacker II was.
The purpose of Linebacker II was to carpet bomb Hanoi. The plaque states that the B-52 shot down an enemy fighter during this offensive. Moore's point, I'm assuming, was to say that it also killed a bunch of others during the carpet bombing, it's intended purpose.

Edit to add: PJ-Have you seen bowling for Columbine yet?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I think you should watch the movie. You might find that you really like it.

I already said that I did watch (some of) the movie. I stopped watching in large part because I had to return the video and I was out of time (the library gives only two days without a renewal). I was not interested in bothering to renew the v ideo. I had already read plenty about Moore's b.s. shenanigans in the movie before I took it out to watch, and even if I had not read up on it, I would have been turned off by the parts I did watch.

The movie is a piece of shit. It's paraded around as "documentary," but it's twisted like taffy to make it say what Moore wanted it to say -- truth and accuracy be damned.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[WFFC 1]

Quote

The movie is a piece of shit. It's paraded around as "documentary," but it's twisted like taffy to make it say what Moore wanted it to say -- truth and accuracy be damned.

-

In some ways it is a documentary. It offers the view of the 'author' and his finding. Granted, there are items done for dramatic effect, but it's still a documentary.
BTW, you should go pick the movie back up and watch the whole thing. Then, watch the extras. Doesn't sound like you will, but you should so you can say you've seen the whole thing.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

The movie is a piece of shit. It's paraded around as "documentary," but it's twisted like taffy to make it say what Moore wanted it to say -- truth and accuracy be damned.

-

In some ways it is a documentary. It offers the view of the 'author' and his finding. Granted, there are items done for dramatic effect, but it's still a documentary.
BTW, you should go pick the movie back up and watch the whole thing. Then, watch the extras. Doesn't sound like you will, but you should so you can say you've seen the whole thing.

Fine, maybe I will -- the library has it for free. I just have to find the time. Trust me, watching Michael Moore spew what I know are lies is very far down my priority list.

As far as calling it a documentary -- propaganda that can be disproved, and which had to be known to be false by the presenter -- does not count as "documentary." Hitler had films made vilifying the Jews. They presented "his views." Does that make them documentary, since we know that most of it was just smearing of the Jews, and patently untrue?

Documentary is a term that is not content-neutral. You cannot put out a film filled with the most callous disregard for truth and fact, call it a film about "your views," and then say it's a documentary. To be a documentary, the film should contain FACTS that can be agreed upon by neutral, disinterested parties. Like a documentary on the three-toed sloth, for example. You would not expect much contention about such a film, because it would be based on scientific fact. If you placed characters into such a film, like Dr. Buchwald G. Manfrenngensen and his wife, the celebrated naturalists, who did not exist in real life, and scripted them to behave in a certain way with the three-toed sloths out there in the jungle, then you're have "realistic fiction," but no longer would you have a documentary.

Likewise, when you doctor someone's speech to give a false impression of the manner, time, and location of its actual delivery, you no longer have a documentary.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[CuriousGirl 0]

"Good wombs hath borne bad sons" was a quote from Shakespeare that Eric Harris (the Columbine shooter) said once. The quote should be self-explanatory. It's amazing how someone like Shakespeare back then could grasp this concept, but so many modern and intelligent people in this day in age refuse to accept it.


Has anybody actually researched what their parents ar like? Let me enlighten those who are quick to assume.


Wayne Harris (Eric's father) DID find a pipe bomb in Eric's room. He grounded Eric, took away his privileges, AND did searches in Eric's room. As a former teenager, I know that grounding isn't necessarily going to to stop me from doing what I want to do. If anything, grounding just inspires kids to get even sneakier. They come up with smarter ways to NOT get caught next time. It doesn't matter how snoopy or involved a parent is. A lot of kids still find ways to deceive their parents. You may think that you know everything about your child, but don't be so sure. Some of the most screwed up kids come from the strictest families. Of coures, the parents are arrogant and clueless because they think they have their kids under control and are too busy criticizing other parents for their skills.

The Harrises and Klebolds were described by neighbors and friends as being involved and caring parents. Mr. Klebold regarded Dylan as his soulmate, and often told Dylan that he was there for him. The Harrises always drilled the concept of hard work into their kids. Eric couldn't do anything, until he finished his homework FIRST. Don't think that these parents didn't set rules and limits for their kids, because they did. They were like any other suburban family.

The Harrises knew that Eric had problems. They took to a counselor and put him on anti-depressants. Guess what the counselor and anger management leaders said? They praised Eric and said he was fine. The same thing goes for Dylan, when he saw some counselors when he got into trouble with the law. You would be surprised at how easy it is to fool someone. So, whose fault is it now? What are you as a parent supposed to do when a LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL says that your kids are going to succeed in life and are fine?


The Harrises also complained to the faculty that Eric was getting harrassed. We all know how jock-oriented schools are biased, so do you think they're actually going to do anything? My school sure as heck didn't anything when I complained about getting made fun of.

If you watch the last video that the Columbine shooters made, they said that their parents are the greatest in the world and to not blame them for their actions. They clearly said that it was their own individual fault for the massacre. In the end, I personally believe that I'm the one making the decision last decision and that I should be held responsible for my actions.

Some sources say the shooters were driven by external forces to do what they did (victimization of bullying), but others say that Eric Harris was a sociopath. Sociopathy/psychopathy is INCURABLE. Most people are shocked to find out that such people are killers, because they are so good at fooling other people with their superficial glib and charm. They will NEVER tell you their real intentions, or show you their real face. Why tell someone that you're going to kill, when they're just going to stop you? That defeats the purpose of the plan.

For those who have family members that are like this, keep in mind that these kind of behaviors are sometimes genetic. If you look at the history of some serial killers, they had people in their gene pool that displayed similar behaviors. Is it a parent's fault, because her great-grandfather was a pscyhopath and that ancestor happened to pass on his genes to her kids? No. Parents can do the best they can.


Losing your son, facing societal stigma, and having the world hate your kids is enough for the Harrises and Klebolds, if you think they deserve to be blamed and punished. I guess other parents will never know how it feels unless it happens to them.

I figured that this tragedy would be a wake-up call to America that such things can happen in rich, consevative, prestigious neighborhoods and that parents aren't always the ones to blame. But, I guess not. Everyone just wants to point fingers and criticize, instead of just praying for the community to heal. People don't realize that that same hatred and negativity is what fueled these boys' anger in the first place.

P.S. I'm not talking about this forum, as it's nice to see some people that are a bit more-open minded on the tragedy. But on other forums, people have made rather cruel comments towards the Harrises and Klebolds, without actually finding out what they were like.