That is, a massacre planned and carried out by seemingly normal, affluent youth on their classmates.
How would people have responded? What/who would they have blamed etc.
That is, a massacre planned and carried out by seemingly normal, affluent youth on their classmates. How would people have responded? What/who would they have blamed etc.
Pretty sure that there were deadly shootings like this in the period. The most deadly one of the period was in 1966 at UT-Austin; there was not a nationwide reaction to it, but rather Texas as a state tried to find out the dude's motives, and he was clearly unhinged.
So my answer to the question is that it'd be treated as a local, not national, event, just as it was in '66.
Pretty sure that there were deadly shootings like this in the period. The most deadly one of the period was in 1966 at UT-Austin; there was not a nationwide reaction to it, but rather Texas as a state tried to find out the dude's motives, and he was clearly unhinged.
So my answer to the question is that it'd be treated as a local, not national, event, just as it was in '66.
It's quite odd compared to how school shootings are treated today - as a national event, instead of a local one.
How do you define "nation wide reaction"? the fact that it is still quite a well known event tells us that it certainly made national news at least. Do you mean it wasn't politicized?
I will add, although not a massacre wasn't national gun legislation passed only a couple years later in '68 with the assassination of RFK?
I was getting at that, yes. It wasn't politicized, and while it was known nationwide, there was not an official federal reaction to it, (even though it was in LBJ's home state), nor did the evening news focus in on it. It was a big deal in Texas, and the state government led an inquiry on the event in regards to why it happened. The focus was on Charles Whitman, not his Sawed Off Shotgun and M1 Carbine.
.... In the 50s did they even have guns that would make a Columbine styled shooting possible?
That question just boggles my mind.
In the 50s did they even have guns that would make a Columbine styled shooting possible?
There were a wide variety of other semi & full auto war weapons dragged back by clever GIs in 1945-46. Small numbers of specific types, but numerous in the aggregate. my father brought back a half dozen rifles, pistols, and a Belgian trench mortar. Ammo for all but the mortar.
wasn't unusual to bring in a gun to work on in metalshop, or to have for hunting after school
Because in both cases there are no alternatives?From the 1970s the core of the news media owners has been, 'If it bleeds it leads. Its the old tabloid or Yellow Press journalism that had abated to a large degree from the 1940s through 60s. Now it dominates with simplistic and shallow news stories designed to inflame interest vs inform to any real degree.
Its the mental equivalent of buying junk food & sugar drinks at the gas station instead of real food.