By: Matthew Eilbacher Gun violence is an issue that I have always realized the gravity of—it’s near impossible to miss the daily news reports of a seemingly endless number of homicides and suicides—yet, never really looked into beyond cursory observations of such reports and articles. However, attending the public issues forum included in the Talking Together About Guns series really opened my eyes to the true breadth of the problem of gun violence in America, as well as many aspects of this issue I had never even considered.
The forum’s participants were greatly varied, as many different age groups, races, genders, and political viewpoints were represented. This disparity in the types of people present lead to a truly constructive discussion that allowed us to see both sides on many different points, and argue for solutions and plans of action in a civil and productive manner. While we all were able to agree that gun violence is a serious issue in this country and one that requires immediate attention, there were several matters that lead to disagreement within the group. One of the more heated discussion points we deliberated was sparked by the adage that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”. The group was torn on the validity of this statement; while some believed it was necessary to allow people to have guns for protection purposes, others questioned whether doing so hinders more than it helps the fight against gun violence. The main argument against making guns available to the public lies in how rare it is that these “good guys with guns” are actually able to stop the “bad guys with guns”. According to a study conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of 160 incidents of active shooters in the United States from 2000 to 2013, only 5 were ended by armed individuals who are not law enforcement personnel, while 21 were resolved by unarmed individuals who are not law enforcement personnel. Additionally, those in favor of restricting gun availability cite the high frequency of accidental shootings to support their position. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 3,800 people died from accidental shootings in the United States between 2005 and 2010. These numbers were proven to be directly linked to gun prevalence and availability, as a 2001 study reported that “a statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides”. The reality of the situation, and what opponents of widespread gun availability base their views in, is that the amount of firearms in a particular area and the ease with which an individual can procure these weapons determine the number of accidental shootings that occur. The leading assertion against the restriction of firearm availability is founded in the Constitution of the United States of America. People of this school of thought turn to the second amendment as their main point of contention, which grants us the right to bear arms. It would be unconstitutional, these individuals argue, to restrict people from purchasing and possessing guns, and thus, any constraints put in place to reduce firearm availability impede on the rights of American citizens. In our forum group, it was apparent that neither side would totally concede to the other when discussing possible approaches to solving this matter. Additionally, it would be foolish to believe this solution will come in the form of one extreme or the other: it is tremendously unlikely that guns are made illegal, as it is that all current restrictions on the sale and possession of guns are lifted. Thus, we instead aimed to seek solutions that reconcile the two, and find a middle ground. One potential solution we came up with was further regulating gun laws to cut back on the frequency with which accidental shootings occur. Implementing laws that allow Americans to keep their guns but require that they take certain safety precautions would greatly decrease the prevalence of unintentional gun-caused injuries and deaths. Some potential safety restrictions we discussed include requiring all gun owners to have a safe in their home where all firearms must be stored at all times, and trigger locks that would prevent young children from accidentally firing guns. Such measures would surely contribute to a decline in accidental fatalities, while not infringing on the desires of either side. Another main point of discussion during the forum was the need for automatic firearms. One participant felt particularly strongly about the need—or lack thereof—for such weapons. This individual argued that the manufacturing and sale of automatic guns does nothing but enable mass shootings, a notion I found quite interesting. I had never given much thought to this idea, but upon further contemplation, myself and most of the forum’s members realized that this argument had validity. The only conceivable need we could think of for automatic weapons was their use for sport; however, when considering the amount of killing power they possess, it seems absurd to attempt to justify keeping them legal for public use. In the majority of mass shooting cases that have occurred over the last three decades, automatic guns have been used. These weapons allow perpetrators to fire very high numbers of bullets in very little amounts of time, maximizing how many innocent people they are able to kill and wound before they are taken down themselves. The safety of the American public should be the priority in every situation, and making automatic weapons available to the general public is in extreme contradiction with that. I gained a wealth of knowledge from attending and participating in this public issue forum on gun violence, not only in the form of the fact and figures behind this issue, but in the form of differing perspectives, as well. In hearing the opinions and viewpoints of so many different types of people, I was able to broaden my own outlook on the components of gun violence in America, and gain a greater appreciation for that of others, as well.
0 Comments
By: Matthew Eilbacher Upon first learning of the Talking Together About Guns series, I became extremely excited at the opportunity to attend as many of these events as possible. While I have always realized how serious an issue gun violence is in this country, I have never had a personal experience with guns myself, and neither, fortunately, have any of my friends or family members. Because of this, my experience with gun violence has come from a much more objective viewpoint rather than a subjective one; instead of being personally impacted by the devastating gun violence that plagues this country, my experience and knowledge of this matter are essentially limited to news articles that simply relay facts and statistics. Rather than hearing moving personal anecdotes about gun violence and the horrible turmoil it leaves in its wake, I see only the numbers that represent the lives lost as a result of it. While these by themselves are cause for significant concern, statistics do not have nearly the same effect as hearing the stories and seeing the faces behind the numbers.
Due to my lack of personal experience with gun violence and combined with the regularity with which it occurs in this country, I have almost become numb to this persistent and debilitating problem. Each day there are new reports of homicide, suicide, and mass shootings; we hear of such incidents so often that these egregious crimes have become normalized in today’s society. Joe Quint’s presentation on survivors of gun violence seemed to be the perfect opportunity for me to finally develop an understanding of the personal side of gun violence. Mr. Quint’s presentation consisted of a number of forms of media—including photos, videos, and voice recordings—that capture the stories of American men, women and children who have in some way been affected by gun violence. Mr. Quint, a photographer, effectively tells the stories of witnesses of gun violence, the loved ones of its victims, and survivors themselves, through not only words, but visuals as well; as each of these individuals spoke their story, an accompanying photograph was displayed on the screen. These images, all taken by Mr. Quint himself, encapsulate all the emotion and sentiment of the words being spoken, and it was this combined approach that really left a lasting impact on me. I was for the first time able to put a face to the numbers I so often see in the news, and appreciate the true impact gun violence has on the lives of so many each year. One story that particularly resonated with me was told by the mother of a teen who was shot and killed in the parking lot of a convenience store. The woman explained, through tears, how her son had been gunned down by a complete stranger because, according to his murderer, the music he was playing in his car was “too loud”. This anecdote in particular stuck with me for multiple reasons. The first is the sheer absurdity and irrationality of the killer’s motive behind shooting the innocent teen. For absolutely no valid reason at all, this sick man ended the life of another at such a young age. The problem of the availability of guns is made very clear here; individuals who would even consider committing such a crime should have no way of getting their hands on guns, and these horrifying scenarios will continue to play out on a regular basis if something is not done to solve this. The second reason this story had such an impact on me is the fact that it seems exactly like something I would see in the news and then forget about, never to think of it again. Homicides like this are certainly not rare, and the news coverage of this case would provide only the bare minimum facts and a picture of the perpetrator. However, the way in which Mr. Quint presented the same story allowed me to truly grasp and be moved by the gravity of such an instance of gun violence. Rather than simply reading that a teen had been shot and killed, I was able to hear the story from the victim’s mother herself, who went on to speak about how her son’s death had continued to impact her life and the lives of all his loved ones to this day, and how it will continue to do so for the rest of her life. The emotion and personal aspect of her account could never be captured by text alone. Seeing and hearing the mother speak of the tragedy she was forced to live through moved me more than any news report I have ever read, and every other story included in the presentation had the same effect. As a result, my perspective on the issue of gun violence has changed dramatically. I now see myself having a much larger stake in the issue; rather than viewing it as an issue that does not and will not ever affect me, I have gained an appreciation for the true urgency of the problem of gun violence, and more so, the significant impact each individual instance has on the lives of so many. The most important takeaway, in my opinion, that I gained from attending this event is to see each instance of gun violence—whether it be a homicide, suicide or mass shooting—as its own independent and devastatingly tragic case rather than merely as a number a part of a larger statistic. We must not lose sight of the far-reaching, destructive impact each of these gun-caused deaths has on the victims’ loved ones, because for each life lost to gun violence, there are hundreds of others still alive that have to live on in mourning. By: Matthew Eilbacher The following scenario is often used to describe the current state of gender equality in the workplace, and does a terrific job of illustrating the uphill battle that is a woman’s career in the workforce: two recent college grads with the same degree begin working at a company with the exact same job description. Both work the same number of hours, yet upon their hiring, one was offered a salary much higher than the other. If there is little conceivable difference in their performance, then how come one of these individuals is paid so much more? The answer is simple: the person with the higher salary is a man, while the other, who does comparable work for a significantly lower pay, is a woman. A woman’s career in the workplace is generally far more problematic than a man’s from start to finish; a man’s struggle to be hired, paid well and promoted falls well short of a woman’s, the latter having the system stacked against her in all aspects and levels of the workplace.
The discrimination against working women begins as soon as they enter the labor force—or attempt to at least. Hiring bias is a very serious and pressing issue in this country, defined as either the unconscious or conscious partiality employers have for hiring male employees over female ones. While this prejudice exists across all fields, it is perhaps most apparent in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). A study carried out by the Columbia Business School demonstrates that employers in these fields are far more likely to hire a man over a woman, even despite knowing that the latter is more qualified. The results of this experiment detail that employers were twice as likely to hire a man over a woman when gender was the only information made available about the candidates. Furthermore, and even more shocking, is that this same likelihood of hiring a male over a female was present when the employer was made aware that the woman was, in fact, more qualified. Such blatant and baseless gender inequality should not and can not be tolerated any longer. While most managers claim to be dedicating effort to reducing gender discrimination in the workplace, concrete results have yet to make themselves clear. Companies, and hiring managers specifically, need to be held accountable for their unwarranted prejudices when it comes to the labor force. As if earning a job in the first place was not already enough of a struggle, their fight ramps up even further afterwards; if getting hired is an uphill battle, asserting themselves in the workplace and earning what they deserve is a full-on war. According to the Women Are Getting Even (WAGE) Project, the wage gap is so wide that a woman will make a third less in a lifetime than a man with the same degree, and, on average, will make 80 cents to the dollar a man makes. Additionally, the difference in male and female salaries add up to more than $430,000 over a full career; to put that figure in perspective, the average price of a house in the United States in January of 2015 was $294,300. Another major issue women face is immobility in the workplace. Despite expressing identical desire for earning promotions, women receive these higher level positions at an alarmingly lower rate than men. According to a study released by Lean In and McKinsey & Co., women employees are 15% less likely to earn promotions than men employees. This is yet another instance of employer bias, as women are categorically unfairly treated and undervalued as compared to their male counterparts. When speaking on the matter of the feminine struggle for promotion, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founder and CEO of the Center for Work-Life Policy, described it as so: “The way to get promoted is to do a diving catch…Women have a hard time taking on those assignments because you can dive and fail to catch. If a man fails, his buddies dust him off and say, 'It's not your fault; try again next time.' A woman fails and is never seen again." Not only are women unjustly held back from attaining higher level positions, but they are scrutinized more harshly for making mistakes, as well. Although a push for gender equality in the workplace was a major part of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, not much else has been done to combat this undeniable problem. While immense progress has been made in increasing the number of women in the workplace, we are still a far cry away from a truly gender equal work environment. Rather than being punished and neglected due to their gender, women should be rewarded for their merits in the same way as their male counterparts. Grand-scale change needs to occur, and if employers refuse to take it upon themselves to right this immense wrong any longer, there needs to be serious discussion and consideration of implementing laws and regulations that will help facilitate the culture change presently necessary in the United States of America. By: Matthew Eilbacher The issue of transgender bathroom rights is one of the most heated discussion points in recent memory. The controversial subject sparked widespread debate when a movement began to take hold in 2012 that advocated for the installation of gender-neutral bathrooms at universities and high schools across the nation. The supporters of this movement are great in number and largely in favor of legislation allowing individuals to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as rather than the one they were biologically born as. Such considerable discord over the issue stems from its extremely polarizing nature. There is not much middle ground between the two extremes of the argument: either you are in support of allowing transgender individuals to use the opposite-sex bathroom or you are against it.
This movement and the debate that has ensued since its conception lead to the eventual introduction of legislation that would make this practice illegal in conservative states such as Maryland, Arizona, Kentucky and Florida. These bills require that individuals use the restroom that corresponds to the biological sex they were born as, not the gender they feel they are. In response to this proposed reform, the LGBT community and its allies launched a campaign of fervent protest and opposition, claiming such laws discriminate harshly and unjustly against transgender individuals, infringing on the rights granted to them in the Constitution of the United States. The chief argument against what the opposition refer to as anti-transgender laws is the emotional harm that comes with forcing such individuals to use bathrooms of the gender they do not identify as. Doing so demands that these people either endure seriously uncomfortable situations in the opposite gender’s bathroom or use only unisex bathrooms including those in the nurse’s office or teacher’s lounge. Reports show that the latter of these options lead transgender students to miss class time (as a result of having to trek all the way to one of the school’s usually scarce unisex bathrooms) and feel as though they are different from the other students and as though they are “quarantined”. The former option does not provide any upside for transgender students either, as a study conducted by UCLA discloses that roughly 70% of those forced to use the opposite bathroom report being verbally harassed and 10% report being physically assaulted. Those who subscribe to this school of thought also contend that forcing transgender individuals to use the opposite gender’s bathrooms creates more discomfort and awkwardness for non-transgender people, as there will now be people of both male and female outward appearances in both gender’s bathrooms. Another prominent argument for the opposition of bathroom laws is that such legislation is blatant and immoral discrimination, similar to the prejudiced injustices protested in other civil rights movements such as women’s and African Americans’ right to vote. They dispute the government’s right to force all individuals—not just transgender people—to disclose such sensitive and personal information such as their biological sex before using the restroom, claiming it is in direct violation of the Constitution. On the other hand, supporters of the proposed bathroom bills base their argument in the speculated dangers of having transgender women (biological men) in the same bathrooms as biological women. This group of people fear that allowing anybody to legally use either restroom will lead to sexual predators taking advantage of these laws, increasing the prevalence of sexual assault. Additionally, some parents argue that they don’t want adult men (biologically) using the same bathroom as their young daughters. Those who oppose transgender bathroom rights cite these privacy and public safety concerns as their leading assertions. Their response to their opponents’ allegations of discrimination is simple: there is currently no federal law that criminalizes sexuality or gender identity-based discrimination. Thus, while bathroom laws may be immoral in the eyes of certain people, they are not illegal. However, it may not be long until they are indeed against the law. In 2015, the Equality Act was introduced to Congress, which would legally protect LGBT individuals by extending anti-discrimination laws to include the categories of sexuality and gender identity, as well. While this legislation has not yet been passed, it is a sign that things are moving in that direction. I truly see merits to the arguments of both sides of this debate, however, I tend to side more with the supporters of transgender rights for several reasons. The first is that I believe that the argument that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead sexual predators to take advantage of the law is baseless and a total reach. The truth to the matter is that sexual assaults will occur with the same frequency regardless of bathroom laws; a sexual predator is not going to refrain from sexually assaulting someone just because it is illegal for him or her to enter the bathroom. Additionally, in states that have already passed legislation granting transgender bathroom rights, levels of sexual assault in bathrooms has remained unchanged. Another reason I believe that a federal legalization of gender-neutral bathrooms is in order is because I can not agree on a moral level with forcing transgender individuals to use a gendered bathroom they do not identify with. It is easy to put yourself in the shoes of one of these people to understand what they are going through: simply imagine being legally required to only use the men’s bathroom if you are a woman, or vice versa. It is important to understand that transgender individuals are not “going through a phase” or pretending to be something they are not. Instead, these people truly feel as though they merely have the body of their biological sex—all other aspects of their personalities and identities belong to the opposite gender. Therefore, when viewed in this light, it is for me impossible to justify the cruel discrimination they are currently the victims of. However, many people do not feel this way, and have their own beliefs and opinions on the matter. Thus, the outlook for a compromise in the near future looks bleak; transgender bathroom rights, and rights in general, will most likely continue to be a major problem in this country for years to come. |
Categories
All
|