What would be the reaction to a Columbine-type school shooting in the 1950s US?

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.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
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.
 

ThePest179

Banned
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.
 
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.

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?
 

TinyTartar

Banned
It's quite odd compared to how school shootings are treated today - as a national event, instead of a local one.

That is because it is linked to the debate over guns. There wasn't really a debate over guns back then. It was more seen as serious crime that needed to be addressed, not an NRA sanctioned hit on children.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
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.
 

jahenders

Banned
The hyper-politicization had a lot to do with it.

The other thing that leads to such things being national issues is the 'evolution' of the media -- instant communication, fast transportation, 24-hour news cycle, ratings wars among television news outlets. With all of this, virtually EVERY issue (from a shooting, to an E Coli outbreak in one area, to a shark attack) becomes a nationwide issue and is hyped up in the news with multiple stories, background stories, follow-up stories, etc.

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.
 
What would people think about the Bath School Disaster? Man murdered his wife, blue up his home, half an elementary school, plus then drove up in a truck, waved the superintendent over, then fired a shotgun into the explosives loaded in the back to detonate the whole thing. Fifty dead, mostly grade schoolers. But yah, that wasn't down by a teen or kid. In the 50s did they even have guns that would make a Columbine styled shooting possible?
 
.... In the 50s did they even have guns that would make a Columbine styled shooting possible?

That question just boggles my mind.

Here are two of the light weight rapid fire weapons commonly available in the 1950s. All are semi automatic, tho licensed full auto versions were available if you had the money & connections.

M1 Carbine. US Army issue. High capacity magazine available. My father had on in the closet, with mags & ammo. His was semi auto, but a local gunsmith could and would have done a unlicensed conversion for him.

Thompson SMG. These were still around in the 50s, tho less common than the M1. A number of unlicensed full auto versions were still in the hands of ranchers, urban gangsters, & collectors. Drum mags were still available.

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.
 
In the 50s did they even have guns that would make a Columbine styled shooting possible?

Remington Model 8 1906
Winchester Model 1907

Both semiauto deer rifles with magazines, in what today would be an 'Intermediate' cartridge

You could get your choice of WWII surplus rifles for $20 on up, mailed to your front door, or to the local Hardware Store and buy a rifle, shotgun or pistol across the counter.

wasn't unusual to bring in a gun to work on in metalshop, or to have for hunting after school
 
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.

Spendy, but you could mailorder Antitank rifles from the backs of magazines.

When I was a kid, a neighbor would order a footlocker worth of old guns for near scrap weight, sift for decent from the dross.

Gave me a couple to practice gunsmithing on, and the real junk he would strip the wood off, and use them for rebar in cement.

Different times....
 
one of the interesting things about the 1966 shooting was civilians shot back and cooperated with the police.
If it happened now the police would have disarmed the civilians who were shooting back.

Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and armed civilians. One Texas Ranger used a student as spotter to help locate the sniper. At this point, Whitman chose to fire through waterspouts located on each side of the tower walls. This action largely protected him from gunfire below, but limited his range of targets.[63] Police sharpshooter Marion Lee reported from a small airplane that he had observed a single sniper firing from the observation deck. Lee tried to shoot Whitman from the plane, but the turbulence proved too great. Whitman shot at the plane, and it moved off to circle from a greater distance. Whitman never shot any of his victims more than once after they had fallen to the ground. It is believed that Whitman kept in his mind the U.S. Marine Corps tradition of "one shot, one kill" of warfare training.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#The_murders
 
wasn't unusual to bring in a gun to work on in metalshop, or to have for hunting after school

When I was in high school in the 80s I remember seeing pickup trucks in the student parking with guns in the gun racks. Another consideration is the lack of a 24 hour news cycle in the 1950s.
 
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.
 
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.
Because in both cases there are no alternatives?
 
Yeah a lot of people don't have alternatives, they are just too poor. Using their thin cash or food stamps to buy the inexpensive major brand packaged food. Other people have a choice however, & it seems to me they choose the easy way out.

I look for my news in the secondary press, the specialty media where the consumer is paying a lot more but gets better quality. Real information & more of it. The Wall Street Journal is the furtherest I venture into main stream media. For food I do what I call the Amish diet. Ordinary food, but I buy it direct in the farmers markets or from small restaurants where I have some confidence the raw materials come from a quality oriented producer. I do all I can to avoid the packaged food that has been processed to the point where the vitamins, enzymes, & proteins are badly damaged & in a large part indigestible.
 
Top