Following fatal tragedies such as mass shootings, it is especially important to ensure that there is kindness and thoughtfulness in your words.
With the combination of the internet and the enforcement of the First Amendment, many people voice their opinions to wide audiences.
The language used after a devastating shooting often makes the issue more complex, rather than contributes to a thoughtful dialogue. Problems can arise when speaking about the reasons for a shooting, what we should do in response to one and how we represent those involved.
It’s incredibly unhelpful and misguided to say that mass killings simply wouldn’t happen if we let Jesus into our lives or that the only thing to do to amend the situation is just to pray.
This way of thinking is ludicrous and offensive to those who have suffered in the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas.
Instead of claiming that a higher being is dealing our hand and that we somehow caused this violence by being non-believers, we should look at what we can actually prove with facts and statistics to prevent these things from happening again.
Here is what we should do after such tragedies in the future: implement gun control, acknowledge terrorism for what it is and listen to the concerns of those affected by these episodes.
When it comes to gun control conversations after shootings, we have to acknowledge the increased rate of gun purchases.
Evelyn Cheng of CNBC reported that since Monday, stock in guns has grown 3 percent. Cheng also said this was a continuation of a trend that began after previous mass shootings.
Cheng stated that this stemmed from fear that stricter regulations will come into existence, but the last time any serious changes were made to gun regulations was in 2007, which only made the federal background check stricter.
Because it appears that gun control laws won't change any time soon, we need to change the way we react to a mass shooting, especially if the shooter was white.
We need to stop finding ways to humanize them. We need to stop producing news articles and profiles that depict them as “highly intelligent” or "descending into madness" because we are ignoring the most appropriate label: terrorist.
The Las Vegas Police Department and the FBI both refused to label Stephen Paddock as a terrorist because he was unaffiliated with terrorist organizations and they couldn't determine to what belief system he subscribed.
They called him a “lone wolf” who acted on his own.
The Manchester bombing earlier this year was also carried out by one man, but it was considered terrorism because he was affiliated with Islamic extremism.
Both of these were tragedies committed by a single man, and the Las Vegas shooting could be considered worse based on the number of casualties, but the media will not acknowledge it as an act of domestic terrorism.
The definition of domestic terrorism is “the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator's own country against their fellow citizens.”
That seems to be what happened in Las Vegas.
Let’s do ourselves a favor and acknowledge the facts and speak with them in mind, rather than fill space with language that won't bring us closer to a solution.
mmgarbac@indiana.edu
