By Bill McAllister
Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief
April 5, 1 p.m. - WASHINGTON - Patti Nielson has had little to say publicly about the day she was shot by Eric Harris at Columbine High School.
But when the editors of Redbook magazine asked the Colorado art teacher if she would help them deliver a gun control message to Congress, Nielson asked her 9-year-old son, Josh, what should she do. He told her she should speak out about what happened last April 20 at the suburban Denver high school.
On a chilly Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill, Nielson did just that.
"It's been a year since two teenagers with illegally obtained guns shot their way into school and changed our lives forever," Nielson declared at a news conference surrounded by some of the leading gun-control advocates in Congress. "And in that year nothing has changed that would have stopped them from buying those guns in the first place."
Nielson said she was one of the luckly ones.
"The bullet just grazed my shoulder and they didn't shoot me again," she said.
The Columbine teacher said she had spent "countless hours" wondering how the mass shootings could have occurred.
"I have been told that this massacre could have been prevented if these boys had been Boy Scouts,if they had attended church, if they had not been picked on at school, if they had participated in the arts, if their parents had paid closer attention to them," she said.
"Any of these things may have prevented this tragedy, but we will never know. The fact is all we know for sure is that if they hadn't gotten those guns, they never would have killed those innocent people. And the shocking thing is that they got those guns so easily from a gun show.
"I believe in our youth and I know that access alone will not turn them into killers. Guns are just one piece of the problem, but a significant piece, and therefore tougher gun legislation is an undeniable piece of the solution."
Nielson delivered her statement surrounded by a bipartisan group of legislators, none from Colorado, who have supported tougher control legislation. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train, lead to group which gathered to greet Nielson and the editor of Redbook magazine, Lesley Jane Seymour. The magazine presented 11,000 postcard petitions its readers had signed to Congress arguing for background checks on all guns sold at guns shows and trigger locks.
McCarthy said she was confident that the issue, currently stalled in a House-Senate conference committee, will begin to move. That because of growing public pressure and "because we're right," she said.
Copyright 2000 The Denver Post. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This was my letter to the paper:
I don't know if this will reach listening ears, but I would like to say something regarding your article about Patti Nielson and her comments on Columbine in the article named "Columbine victim speaks out for gun control" on April 5.
This is Ms. Nielson's quote:
"Any of these things may have prevented this tragedy, but we will never know. The fact is all we know for sure is that if they hadn't gotten those guns, they never would have killed those innocent people. And the shocking thing is that they got those guns so easily from a gun show. "
Ms. Nielson said "The fact is all we know for sure is that if they hadn't gotten those guns, they never would have killed those innocent people.
This is FAR from a "fact". Does she forget that they had over 90 bombs and a years worth of planning in this attack on the school? Are we not surpirsed they did not kill MORE people? If they had just made one big bamb, strapped it on and walked into a classroom they would have killed many more people. In fact there are many ways they could have accomplished a lot more bloodshed. It is NOT a "fact" that "if they had not had the guns they would not have killed people". They probably would have killed a lot more in fact. This kind of emotional rhetoric really needs to be expunged. Guns are tools. These boys (unlike millions of Americans every year that use guns properly to stop crime according to studies by Gary Kleck) chose to misuse that tool. They could have used many other tools, with similar or worse effect. The guns did not kill anybody, THEY killed those people and a lack of access to guns would not have stopped them. In fact, since they got their guns illegally, exactly what laws do we propose that we would have stopped them from getting guns? The same laws we use to stop people from getting narcotics? (We all know how easy it is to get illegal narcotics)
Her other misinformed statement is this: "And the shocking thing is that they got those guns so easily from a gun show. ".
The boys did not get their guns from a gun show. One of their girlfriends, who was 18 years of age, ILLEGALLY bought at least one gun at a gun show. It would not have mattered if she had bought them at a gun show or a gun store. She was of legal age to buy rifles and shotguns. But, she chose to ILLEGALLY buy the guns for her boyfriend in a "Straw Man" purchase. What law would have stopped that? It was an illegal purchase, and they went around the law, just like all criminals do. It was illegal for them to buy those guns, but they got them anyway. So, why are gun shows villified here? They had nothing to do with it except for the fact that she chose to buy the gun there. In fact, the guns were REGISTERED through a gun dealer, according to police who tracked the guns, so they were even bought from a real federally licensed dealer, who registered them and background checked her. She went through all the legal measures to ILLEGALLY buy those guns for her boyfriend, and she could have done the same thing at any retail gun shop.
Thanks for your time. I would be pleased if your paper took the time to point out these errors. There is no need to spread lies (or at least misinformation bred from ignorance) about these issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------
One other thing that bothers me is that she sought her 9 year old for primary advice on her political views. Is that not a symbol of the direction that soccer moms are taking?
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited April 05, 2000).]
Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief
April 5, 1 p.m. - WASHINGTON - Patti Nielson has had little to say publicly about the day she was shot by Eric Harris at Columbine High School.
But when the editors of Redbook magazine asked the Colorado art teacher if she would help them deliver a gun control message to Congress, Nielson asked her 9-year-old son, Josh, what should she do. He told her she should speak out about what happened last April 20 at the suburban Denver high school.
On a chilly Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill, Nielson did just that.
"It's been a year since two teenagers with illegally obtained guns shot their way into school and changed our lives forever," Nielson declared at a news conference surrounded by some of the leading gun-control advocates in Congress. "And in that year nothing has changed that would have stopped them from buying those guns in the first place."
Nielson said she was one of the luckly ones.
"The bullet just grazed my shoulder and they didn't shoot me again," she said.
The Columbine teacher said she had spent "countless hours" wondering how the mass shootings could have occurred.
"I have been told that this massacre could have been prevented if these boys had been Boy Scouts,if they had attended church, if they had not been picked on at school, if they had participated in the arts, if their parents had paid closer attention to them," she said.
"Any of these things may have prevented this tragedy, but we will never know. The fact is all we know for sure is that if they hadn't gotten those guns, they never would have killed those innocent people. And the shocking thing is that they got those guns so easily from a gun show.
"I believe in our youth and I know that access alone will not turn them into killers. Guns are just one piece of the problem, but a significant piece, and therefore tougher gun legislation is an undeniable piece of the solution."
Nielson delivered her statement surrounded by a bipartisan group of legislators, none from Colorado, who have supported tougher control legislation. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train, lead to group which gathered to greet Nielson and the editor of Redbook magazine, Lesley Jane Seymour. The magazine presented 11,000 postcard petitions its readers had signed to Congress arguing for background checks on all guns sold at guns shows and trigger locks.
McCarthy said she was confident that the issue, currently stalled in a House-Senate conference committee, will begin to move. That because of growing public pressure and "because we're right," she said.
Copyright 2000 The Denver Post. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This was my letter to the paper:
I don't know if this will reach listening ears, but I would like to say something regarding your article about Patti Nielson and her comments on Columbine in the article named "Columbine victim speaks out for gun control" on April 5.
This is Ms. Nielson's quote:
"Any of these things may have prevented this tragedy, but we will never know. The fact is all we know for sure is that if they hadn't gotten those guns, they never would have killed those innocent people. And the shocking thing is that they got those guns so easily from a gun show. "
Ms. Nielson said "The fact is all we know for sure is that if they hadn't gotten those guns, they never would have killed those innocent people.
This is FAR from a "fact". Does she forget that they had over 90 bombs and a years worth of planning in this attack on the school? Are we not surpirsed they did not kill MORE people? If they had just made one big bamb, strapped it on and walked into a classroom they would have killed many more people. In fact there are many ways they could have accomplished a lot more bloodshed. It is NOT a "fact" that "if they had not had the guns they would not have killed people". They probably would have killed a lot more in fact. This kind of emotional rhetoric really needs to be expunged. Guns are tools. These boys (unlike millions of Americans every year that use guns properly to stop crime according to studies by Gary Kleck) chose to misuse that tool. They could have used many other tools, with similar or worse effect. The guns did not kill anybody, THEY killed those people and a lack of access to guns would not have stopped them. In fact, since they got their guns illegally, exactly what laws do we propose that we would have stopped them from getting guns? The same laws we use to stop people from getting narcotics? (We all know how easy it is to get illegal narcotics)
Her other misinformed statement is this: "And the shocking thing is that they got those guns so easily from a gun show. ".
The boys did not get their guns from a gun show. One of their girlfriends, who was 18 years of age, ILLEGALLY bought at least one gun at a gun show. It would not have mattered if she had bought them at a gun show or a gun store. She was of legal age to buy rifles and shotguns. But, she chose to ILLEGALLY buy the guns for her boyfriend in a "Straw Man" purchase. What law would have stopped that? It was an illegal purchase, and they went around the law, just like all criminals do. It was illegal for them to buy those guns, but they got them anyway. So, why are gun shows villified here? They had nothing to do with it except for the fact that she chose to buy the gun there. In fact, the guns were REGISTERED through a gun dealer, according to police who tracked the guns, so they were even bought from a real federally licensed dealer, who registered them and background checked her. She went through all the legal measures to ILLEGALLY buy those guns for her boyfriend, and she could have done the same thing at any retail gun shop.
Thanks for your time. I would be pleased if your paper took the time to point out these errors. There is no need to spread lies (or at least misinformation bred from ignorance) about these issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------
One other thing that bothers me is that she sought her 9 year old for primary advice on her political views. Is that not a symbol of the direction that soccer moms are taking?
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited April 05, 2000).]
