When I turned on the morning news on October 2 and saw that the name of "the Oregon shooter" had been released, I assumed this was from an earlier event; it did not occur to me that yet another massacre had occurred the day before. I was so primed to hear this type of report that I wasn't shocked such an event had happened once again. Many have reported about the actual circumstances surrounding the shooting at Umpqua Community College in the small city of Rosenburg, Oregon, and while the memory of those lost in the tragedy need to be remembered and the details of the shooter's actions should be told to the public, what I would like to focus on is our Presidential Candidates' various reactions in its wake. Their words, whether expressed on Twitter or in interviews, provide the nation with profound insight into how prevention of similar mass shootings may be attained in the future, and, more importantly, whether or not the measures to be taken will be effective. I will say it outright, my outlook may appear biased, but I will counter that my voice is a worthy counterbalance to those who have never experienced firsthand the effects of a mental disease. It seems that while some candidates believe in the steps that I too expect to be the most successful, several others are not only opposed to these measures, but also advocate means that I find futile in many regards. However, it needs to be pointed out just how many presidential hopefuls refrained from expressing anything beyond sympathy for the families and friends who lost loved one in the rampage.
Governor Mike Huckabee tweeted, "My prayers are with everyone in Oregon. May the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, guard your hearts," while Lindsey Graham, in his own tweet, remarked, "My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of this terrible tragedy at Umpqua Community College;" similar tweets were sent out by fellow Republicans John Kasich, George E. Pataki, and Jeb Bush. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders also falls into this category of well-wishers, lacking solutions for change. Though, at first one may be concerned by these individuals' seemingly mechanic responses, it does need to be recognized that Twitter is not the platform for which one can outline a strategy for change, and thus it is more likely that these candidates will soon address the shooting with more consideration towards policy changes in the days and weeks to come.
Both Hilary Clinton and Martin O'Malley came out with the most promising reactions tweeting, "Another devastating shooting. We need sensible gun control measures to save lives, and I will do everything I can to achieve that," and "Tweets won't stop this. Thoughts and prayers won't, either. Only real gun reforms will stop mass shootings from occurring nearly every day," respectively. Though neither Democrat actually sets out a plan of action, they at least recognize that to respond to such tragedies with nothing beyond an expression of loss is too effectively allow more days like October 1, 2015 to occur. All of these individuals above, whether or not implying a need for policy changes, are at least not making unfounded claims.
It is for this reason that my real qualm is with Donald Trump.
When asked to respond to the shooting, the Republican candidate stated, like many of his peers, that the massacre was "absolutely a terrible tragedy." Okay, he's definitely correct in that regards, but his method of change is certainly debatable: "It sounds like another mental health problem. So many of these people, they're coming out of the woodwork. We have to really get to the bottom of it. It's so hard to even talk about these things, because you see them and it's such a tragedy." I completely agree with Trump that mental health is an area that medical research needs to put more emphasis on, however, I will adamantly argue that the immediate solution to preventing future shootings does absolutely not lie in focusing on preventing those with psychological diseases from attaining weapons. Why? Because psychological diseases are far and wide enigmas in the medical world. It is so easy for Trump, and moreover, those in support of the NRA and weak gun control, to claim that another shooting would not occur if the purchasing of guns required more background analysis of the buyers, however many of those making these statements have not suffered from psychological diseases.
I have.
Though my disease was a serious eating disorder and not one that led me to ever consider acts of violence, I nonetheless am well aware of how easy it is to play the system. When I was sick, I was totally and completely aware that I was hurting myself and causing pain to my family; I could look any doctor in the eye and say with conviction that my actions made no sense and had no beneficial outcomes. Yet, all that time, a voice was present telling me that I was an exception, that no matter how much evidence was against me, my actions made sense. This dichotomy allowed me to cause family and doctors to actually wonder if perhaps I had something besides an eating disorder that was causing my weight loss; I knew what the world wanted to hear, told it to the world, and did not allow certainty to be attained until I made the choice to fix my problem. I cannot specifically speak to minds of Harper-Mercer, the Oregon shooter, or those that came before him, but I do believe that my experience undermines the potential of laws aimed at preventing those with psychological ailments from attaining weapons. If I could convince those around me that my issues were not cut and dry, I find it hard to believe that those determined to get their hands on guns could not do the same.
One day, the medical world may have a better understanding of the causes of the conditions that yield such heinous killings from occurring, but at this point, the realm of psychologic illnesses is largely unknown. Current methods to reverse these afflictions are based on trial-and-error, and even the most successful ones have to be adapted to the individual. As such, gun control on a universal level needs to occur to prevent another community from having to bear the weight of another massacre. Too many lives have been lost: sending one's regards is not solving anything and there is too much at stake to let policies remain as they are until meaningful advancements in psychology are made that will actually prevent mentally unstable beings from possessing firearms. Measures need to be taken now and people will have to compromise. But is it that difficult of a question, whether owning rapid-fire guns with little difficulty is worth the number of deaths such lack of restrictions have indirectly caused? For the present, restricting the most threatening types of weapons available for all of the nation's civilians is going to be the most effective measure to prevent another close-knit community from having to move foreword amidst tragedy. Perhaps if the nation can accept this, Rosenburg, Oregon will be the last community to shoulder such a horror for a long time.
