ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Las Vegas: Where are the answers?

| Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Las Vegas resident Nancy Cooley writes a message at a makeshift memorial to victims of the Las Vegas mass shooting at the iconic Welcome To Fabulous Las Vegas sign.
AFP/Getty Images
Las Vegas resident Nancy Cooley writes a message at a makeshift memorial to victims of the Las Vegas mass shooting at the iconic Welcome To Fabulous Las Vegas sign.

On Oct. 2, we awoke to the reports of another mass shooting. Yet despite the overwhelming coverage, we understand almost less than we did on the day of the shooting.

Everyone asks why this happened. As a criminologist, I can recite the names of shooters and the number of victims from 245 active and mass shooting events between 1966 and 2012 — and by shooters aged 11 to 88 with varying degrees of anger in their lives. I can remind you that these incidents alone killed 777 people and injured 947, and I can list factors that may have affected each of these shooters.

I can also tell you that these numbers have been rising at staggering rates since 2012 with shootings in Oregon, Orlando and now Las Vegas. I have the tools to calculate the rates of increase over time and predict the rising numbers of victims and offenders.

But I don't have the clear answer.

What is certain is that this was a national tragedy, and this is a national crisis. I don't say this to be alarmist, but rather to tell you that the “not if, but when” attitude about the next mass shooting is a problem.

The crushing weight of it is unbearable. But then, collectively, we'll self-soothe through distraction. Donald Trump's next tweet and Taylor Swift's album release will burst into our lives, and the attack in Las Vegas will join Hurricanes Irma, Harvey and Maria, along with North Korean threats, as yesterday's news. Yet, we'll remember Las Vegas again when someone new decides to claim the title and commit the next “deadliest shooting.”

Just as this latest attack brought us back to Columbine and Virginia Tech and Fort Hood and Aurora, the next will reopen the scars from Las Vegas, which were never fully healed or resolved.

Mr. Rogers once said, “Even if we wanted to, it would be impossible to give our children all the reasons for things such as war, terrorists, abuse, murders, major fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. If they ask questions, our best answer may be to ask them, ‘What do you think happened?' If the answer is, ‘I don't know,' then the simplest reply (is), ‘I'm sad about the news, and I'm worried. But I love you, and I'm here to care for you.'”

We're not children, but we're asking the same question, and we're worried in the aftermath of murders.

We can't know what or how this shooter in Las Vegas felt, but we can try to make sure that others don't feel the same way. As a country, we're a national community, and to prevent these attacks, we need to have respectful, reasonable discussions about how we can take care of each other. Speak to someone who seems isolated or alone. Ask people how they're doing, and then actually listen to their answers. Do more than retweet videos of poignant words; be the person with compassionate words.

This isn't much in answering the larger questions or making the world a safer place, but it's a start. And when we awake to another report of a mass shooting and you ask again why this happened, I'll start this way: “I'm sad about the news, and I'm worried. But I love you, and I'm here to take care of you.”

Sarah E. Daly, an assistant professor of criminology at Saint Vincent College, has a bachelor of arts degree from University of Notre Dame, master of science degree from University of Pennsylvania, and a master of arts and Ph.D. in criminal justice from Rutgers University. She has studied mass shootings and gang violence extensively in her research.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me