This is part one of a two-part response by CRIT-LARGE to the August 2019 shootings in El Paso and Dayton. To read part two, find it here.

This weekend marked a shift in our national discourse. With back-to-back mass shootings, this weekend was a time that will live in infamy. The events that transpired will serve as a landmark that future generations can point to that decidedly shifted how we talk about gun violence and tragedy in our country. The typical tone from conservative commentators has shifted from mundane to concerned; along with it, my perspective has been affected by these terrible tragedies.

While we often mourn in the typical ways after these all-too-frequent events take place (how gutwrenching it is to speak so casually about mass murder), the catastrophic, end-over-end sequences that took place this weekend stand out from the rest by their rapid succession and sheer number of casualties.

The typical talking points from the left are rebooted and rehashed: white supremacist, Trump’s racist rhetoric, and gun-control. Their points don’t change from shooting to shooting; most of the time with a legitimate reason. Those who cite these points believe, most in earnestness, that these are the causes of our shootings. Giving credit where it’s due, at face value these points are the easiest to identify and label. A political minority, however, uses these points as a baton to wield against political opponents.

Examining my own actions and reactions, I’ve noticed my first move is to research the shooter. I take note of their reported postings, social media rants, recommended books, political leanings, and religious affiliations. I find, if one is published, their manifesto and read it. I have also begun to ask myself if I’m guilty of using these bullet points to form my own baton and shield.

The El Paso shooter, I read, was pro-Trump but anti-corporation; anti-immigrant but an environmentalist.* He cited economic reasons for his violence and Hispanic-hate but hated neo-conservatives (my phrasing). He also believed he was doing good to cull the population, for the future of the planet and our country. By all accounts, he did not fit neatly into either side’s ideological box. While publicized in black and white, a human being is nothing if not shades of gray.

The Dayton shooter, however, was largely uncovered because his politics did not fit the mainstream narrative.

Sadly, many commentators jump first to those weapons: Whose “side” is the shooter on? Will this hurt my own side? Will this be detrimental to Trump’s chances of re-election? How can I spin this? I lament to think if these questions so callously cross my mind in the aftermath of a tragedy. In some way, we’ve all been trained by the media to think that way, instead of coming together over tragedy. We’ve set up camp at the point where tragedy now divides us. I struggle to believe it was like this in 2001.

Nonetheless, these recent shootings have given us yet another chance to speak on potential solutions. This piece and this writer, however, will always be able to point to one area in which we have become bereft: culture.

Culture is the one thing that can influence a person from wall-to-wall, inside and out. Culture can teach someone to pick up arms against his fellow man or uplift the masses. Not all cultures are created equal, and a constructive, religious culture has been on the decline in our communities.

The communities and organizations that used to unite, guide, shame, teach, and discipline have all been torn down by those who despise the traditional, the moral, and the just. The institution of family—decimated; The institution of marriage—a joke; The institution of religion—dead.

As people move toward a more secular society, they lose those who might work in their lives to keep them grounded and prevent them from committing heinous acts. Our afflicted young men need loving instruction from a stern, godly father in this epidemic of fatherlessness. Most mass shooters in the last two decades have come from fatherless homes, and the link between violence and young men who grew up without fathers is clear.

Our families need to be connected to each other in matrimony, and to other families in a community of believers in common cause. No legislation will fix our culture problem. No amount of laws will keep a soured, sadistic loner from murder. Nor can a man raised in and committed to Christ’s love carry out acts of terrorism.

None of this is to say we can’t enact regulations and programs that will help keep our citizens safer—everyone should be open to that discussion. I am willing to communicate on gun control, as every reasonable person should be. However, it is an unfortunate yet eternal and inevitable condition that the objects we use to defend ourselves and our safety can be turned against others to do harm. The difference lies in the hands of the person in which the gun lies. The difference is a person who has been raised in a communal reality or banished to construct his own.

Read part two, “Inaction is Unacceptable.”

*Manifesto purposefully left uncited. At CRIT-LARGE, we hold a policy to not publish the names of shooters nor publicize their ideologies.