A twenty-two year old mentally disturbed male takes out a gun, kills six people (including a 9-year-old girl born on Sep 11, 2001) and injures thirteen others including a congresswoman. This is tragic, no doubt, but though I would never use the word commonplace (and hopefully never have to) to describe these occurrences in our country, recently they do seem to be incrementally less sporadic and more periodic. With the media concerning itself with the current political climate, specifically political speech, which may or may not have attributed anything to the shooting, it pays to compare the media’s handling of the Columbine shootings with the current media swarm over Tucson. It very well may show a shift politically that may someday be more tragic than the shootings themselves.
Columbine shook middle class minds and ever since has become a peculiar American reference regarding tragically abject consequences of commonplace angst. But much has improved afterwards due to our handling of it. After Columbine the reaction was first horror and then knee jerking anger at the two teens that dared to use guns instead of middle fingers. That anger then quickly turned into implementing quicker and smarter safety measures in schools across the country to hinder such a tragedy from happening again or at least limiting fatalities if it did. The responses from Columbine and other similar shootings have resulted in healthy debate and helped combine efforts between Police Departments and Schools which in some cases have implemented “active shooter” drills in certain districts. It has also opened the American mind to the fact that we need to collectively do everything within our power to stop these tragedies from being a national pandemic. In short our collective response to these tragedies has been surprisingly wise and remarkably united.
On the other hand, this past shooting in Arizona, the “Tragedy in Tucson”, has sparked a knee jerking debate about political dialogue. Why questioning political dialogue is the concern here instead of questioning why someone with a handgun was able to push through a line of people to get to a Senator and empty a whole magazine without being shot by security strains both the mind and conscience.
Political dialogue is often rude, presumptuous, exaggerated, uncivil, and even enraging at times but why is this shooting being chosen as a catalyst for political reform instead of safety reform? As a nation we refuse to bargain with terrorists but are quick to question ourselves when a twenty-two year old kid, with no clear political views, pulls a gun? The media is pointing the finger at a Palin website, uncivil political speech, the music he listened to, and anything else it sees as political and doesn’t agree with. The real issue here is not what drove this teenager to do this, the issue is that anybody for numerous reasons can choose to become enraged about something and irrationally take a life. It has nothing to do with any political party’s agenda or dialogue. All sides of every political organization or religion have their share of wackoes. The issue is that if we allow ourselves to be moved by violence, that is to say, if our response to it is to make political changes because of it, we not only justify the evil act in the eyes of the perpetrator but we encourage the same act in others. This act of violence should evoke disgust not political introspection and discretion.
The way our government works at the moment and the disconnectedness between those elected and their constituents is angering. Anything we believe strongly in we can get enraged about. But, because we know what country we want and how we want change to develop within it, we choose not to be violent. America is great because it understands that voting for change and amending a document at the polls is far better than a war in its streets. If violence and terror move our government then soon that government will know nothing else.
After Columbine we took stock of the situation and implemented safety measures which have helped America's schools become safer. We have cracked down harder on bullying, gun ownership, school security, and have implemented "active shooter" strategies within Police Departments. (Active Shooter strategies now involve making Policemen immediately enter the school and engage the threat when there is an active shooter, this was not the case during Columbine) All of these things have served to honor the innocent children lost and safeguard the ones that remain. It is important to note that political or religious ideologies were briefly searched and then left alone and safety became the main issue.
The same needs to be done here. "The Tragedy in Tucson" should be covered by the media as a safety issue and nothing else. When we begin to enact political change, even regarding dialogue, because of a shooting or act of terrorism we are treading on shaky ground. Let's not honor the gunman by shaking in our boots or taking steps to be nicer. We need to honor the fallen in the same way as Columbine and make others safer. Being less "noisy" or more politically tolerant will never stop a lunatic from hearing voices, or the disturbed from finding a reason to be angry or grab a gun. We have to deal with these tragedies while still minding our individual and collective rights.
Recent Comments