America's gun culture: is it beyond the state of repair?

I don't own a gun. I've never really had the desire to throughout my entire life outside of a small window where someone tried breaking into my home several years ago. It was really unsettling to feel unsafe in my own home, so I considered the possibility for a couple of weeks. The last thing I wanted to do was be awakened in the middle of the night with a stranger in my bedroom and having no means to protect myself. But over time that fear subsided, and I still have no strong desire to own a firearm at this current point in time in my life.

I've never really had an overly passionate stance on the gun debate. I've always believed that if every gun in America, both legal and illegal, up and vanished off the face of the earth, the US would have significantly fewer deaths and homicides every year. It would be exponentially safer. I don't think any sane person could even argue otherwise, guns account for the majority of homicides in the US, and half of suicides. Not to mention accidentally deaths factor in as well. And if tomorrow guns were hypothetically banned nationwide, I really wouldn't care much, because as someone who doesn't own a gun, it really wouldn't affect me. But at the same time, I've always tried to see the other side of people who advocate for guns. The woman who has the crazy ex-boyfriend stalking her, and is tired of looking over her shoulder all the time and wants a means of protection. The family that lives in an impoverished, drug and gang-ridden neighborhood ravaged by crime, and don't feel safe in their own homes with simple locks, security systems, and baseball bats. I could name a variety of examples of people and situations those who aren't gun nuts might feel the need to own a firearm just to feel safe in their daily lives.

There's no denying though, in my opinion, America does indeed have a gun problem. And a violence problem(I'll get to that later). Part of the reason the aforementioned bad neighborhood is unsafe, to the point where a family feels they need a gun for protection, is most likely because criminals who operate in these neighborhoods also have guns. Rise in crime, as we've seen over the last couple years with gun ownership increasing directly coincides with a rise in crime. Those people may not necessarily even be pro gun. They may just be thinking "As long as this country is going to have a gun problem, I may as well protect myself with the most effective weapon possible, because bad people certainly aren't going to stop getting their hands on them any time soon." And for that logic specifically, I can't knock anyone. After all, even someone like me who never had a desire to own a gun, felt that way for a brief moment of my life.

So one of the questions then becomes: if America has a gun problem, is it beyond the state of repair? Is this country too far gone? America has more guns than people. There are over 350 million guns in this country. And an incredibly deep historical culture and an affinity for guns. The gun culture in America is an entity unto its own. Unique in the western world. How do we get to a point where mass shootings become a rarity and homicides and/or gun deaths are significantly less frequent? Is it even possible? I'll explore each idea one by one. By the way, when I explore each one, I'm talking about how each idea would or could be implemented, not the likelihood it would make it through Congress and eventually become law. I think we all know the likelihoods on that(not very).

Universal gun ban: 

While if guns were universally banned tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eye, I don't consider this remotely feasible. Banning guns and offering some type of buy back program for 350 million firearms would be an undertaking unlike anything this country has ever seen. I don't see any conceivable way it could be effectively implemented, let alone enforced. And that's assuming people even complied, which I think a large portion of the gun-owning population would not. Policies only work if you get compliance. This is not Australia 1996. Australia didn't have the hardcore gun culture America has now, nor the excessive amounts of guns. The US has one major storm and trash collection gets backed up for a week, how the hell are they going to manage confiscating hundreds of millions of guns? And the tens of millions of gun owners who refuse to comply? What do we do with them? Throw them in jail? We don't have the prison space or the resources. Fine them? And if they refuse to pay those fines? Again, we don't have the prison space. Seize their assets? The last thing we need are millions more homeless people in this country. And what of those who claim their guns were stolen and hide them off their property? Hell, they could hide them on their property. We don't have the law enforcement prowess to go door to door through an entire nation looking for peoples' guns.

And then there's that other issue: bloodshed. People are die-hard about their guns, and I mean that in the most literal sense. "Pry it from my cold dead hands" is a slogan for a reason. People believe it. Those guns mean that much to them. If you've ever spoken to a hardcore gun advocate, you would know this. If there were a universal gun ban, maybe saying a civil war would break out is a little extreme, but there certainly are millions of people out there who will fight to the death to defend their right to retain those guns. And would take the use of force to remove them through government authority as the exact reason they need them in the first place, further strengthening their desire to keep them and fight for them. This would not go down without bloodshed, by any stretch. The question is how many people would die.

I consider this possibility extremely unlikely and unrealistic.

Further gun regulations?

Another one I'd be perfectly fine with. I think many more people would be in favor of this than an outright ban. Perhaps even many gun owners. Things likes separate licenses for every firearm, more thorough background checks, mandatory training to show you're competent to own one, giving a credible reason to want to own a firearm to authorities, raising the age limit, banning AR-15s, etc.

The AR-15 ban might face stiff opposition given that, like the outright ban, people who already own AR-15s may be forced to give them up, which would likely face strong push back. But most of those, I think many Americans could agree on. The question is: would they make a difference? If you have 350 million guns already in circulation, and any gun legislation is not retroactive, that would only impact the gun sales made henceforth. If that were the case, and guns became harder to acquire, illegal gun sales would likely dramatically increase, which means harsher penalties for illegal gun sales would have to face severe punishment and lengthy prison sentences. Would this make a difference with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation? I don't know. But I'd be willing to try. I think out of all the ideas, this one has the strongest likelihood of acceptance considering it's a decent compromise in between outright bans and doing nothing at all.

Tighter security nationwide in schools and other institutions?

This is one a lot of people seem opposed to, though I think it's because a lot of people who offer this solution want this in spite of gun regulations, not in addition. In addition to new regulations, I don't know why anyone would be against it. Tons of businesses and institutions already have tight security. The question is: is it feasible? Probably not. Where would the money come from to pay for it? Where is the manpower going to come from? There are thousands of schools in the US. And those are just schools. We don't have the resources to protect every building in the country where large amounts of people may be gathering. However, if individual schools, businesses, etc can afford it or find a way to make it work, and at the very least it gives those who frequent them peace of mind, by all means, go for it.

Making America a less violent place?

Contrary to the belief of some, the gun problem is just one of America's problems. America doesn't just have a gun culture, but it has a culture of violence. Take away crimes committed with firearms and America still has a higher crime rate than many countries. Like rape, assaults, batteries, non gun-related homicides, etc. Why are countries like Japan and South Korea just more peaceful and friendlier than ours? Why are they less violent? Japan was once a country steeped in war for centuries. It's not like it has no violence in its history. Once upon a time, all Japan knew was bloodshed. Yet today, it's significantly more peaceful than the US, when as recently as World War II it was involved in global violent conflict. I wish I had the answer to those questions. I think it's extremely complicated.

I do think mental illness has something to do with it. And yes, every country has mental illness. But not every country has the same rate of the same mental illnesses. There are mental illnesses like depression, bipolar, Tourette's, etc. And then there's mental illness like sociopathy and psychopathy. The latter being a major precursor for someone becoming violent as opposed to the former set of mental illnesses, which usually do not. Is America breeding sociopaths and psychopaths, when combined with the tools to commit mass violence we create killing machines with the means to succeed? And if so, how are we doing so? What is it about our culture that creates people who have a thirst for killing? America's also had a serial killer problem in its history. Many serial killers don't even use guns. Yet the state of California alone has had more serial killers than several nations combined.

People steadfast in their stances refuse to acknowledge both problems exist. Gun advocates refuse to acknowledge guns are a problem, and anti-gun people refuse to acknowledge America has a violence problem. Is it fixable? Honestly, with how little we know about the human brain and psyche, I'd bet my money than the gun problem is solved before the violence problem. Only one of those requires legislation. Which, depending on how elections and voting goes, and who gets in power, there is always a chance of that. Solving the violence issue and understanding the human condition in relation to its surroundings? That requires years of research, funding, technology, and innovation, which I fear we are a long ways away from.

 

So, given my thoughts on a variety of angles of these issues, did I even answer my own question. Maybe... somewhat? Do I think America is beyond the state of repair regarding its gun culture? Probably not. Do I think it's in an place for optimism? Also no. Do I think everyone will ever agree on every aspect of this issue? Not in our lifetimes. But I never say never.

 

On Lia Thomas and the trans athlete debate

I typically don't talk about or have much interest in any topics in the political sphere, unless those topics bleed into my areas of interest. It just so happens that over the past couple of years, that has happened quite a bit, being a lover of true crime and sports. Being someone who has played and watched sports for my entire life, one of the hottest stories in sports right now has piqued my interest. That being the ongoing debate about Lia Thomas, the trans woman swimmer who has been competing against(and dominating) women's swimming competitions. So I'm just going to throw my take on the whole situation out there, as it's something I've thought about a lot, and predicted would happen years ago.

I fully support anyone's right to live their life the way they choose to. And the freedoms to be who they are. I don't like to judge and I want equality for all human beings, regardless or race, sex, or religion. I've long been a supporter of trans rights, just like I've long been a supporter of gay rights. And I think trans women should have the right to swim and compete in swimming competitions. However, the core important value of sport and athletic competitions is fairness. Without competitive fairness, sports would cease to exist. It's why performance enhancing drugs are banned. It's why men and women's leagues are separate. It's why able-bodied athletes can't compete in the para or special Olympics or against those with disabilities. It's unfair. In sport, especially when contracts, scholarships, careers, bonuses, and more are all on the line, competing on a level playing field is absolutely vital.

Trans women have a distinct and significant advantage over biological women. Bone density, tendon strength, bone structure, size, muscle capacity, years of testosterone running through one's body. Even transitioning cannot fully eliminate these significant advantages, as studies have shown. Not that one would need studies to show this. There is no sane argument to the contrary. I've seen some people try to argue that men have no real advantages against women in sport, and that women and men's leagues are separate because "people are afraid that women will outperform men and men are too fragile to handle that possibility." If you are reading this and believe such a thing, you might as well just stop reading now. You're wasting your time and are too ideologically brainwashed to accept logic or reason, and no opinion piece of any kind on this subject is going to change your mind. You'll just be wasting your time.

Lia Thomas was a mediocre swimmer when she was competing as a male vs other male competitors. Lia ranked 462nd among male swimmers, and is now dominating the female competition as a trans woman. The world records in virtually all male physical sports dwarf the world records in the same sports of their female counterparts. The advantage in being a male or having been a male in physical athletics are, needless to say, enormous.

With all that said, I think it's pretty obvious at this point to where I stand on this issue. I don't believe trans women should be allowed to compete against biological women in athletic competitions that are counted towards money, Olympic qualifications, scholarships, contracts, or professionally. How does one show their support for the trans community and take the other side on an issue like this? To me, the answer to that question is simple. If you always stand up for what you think is fairest and makes the most logical sense, you will never betray your values as someone who strives for good. That's what I pride myself in. Looking at all the facts, and forming a well-reasoned and sensible opinion. Which is why I've thought about it enough to come up with some potential solutions or alternatives rather than callously booting trans women from sports, locking the door, and throwing away the key. I think there are ideas to make the best of a difficult and touchy situation that affects many different people. So here are some alternatives I thought of that could allow trans women the ability to swim and compete without taking away opportunities from biological women.

An "Open League" so to speak. A league where trans women can compete against against biological women, because biological women are totally okay with it or even embrace it. This would allow trans women to still be able to compete against biological women who choose to do so, but also spare biological women who wish to not compete at a disadvantage to have their own league against only other biological women.

A trans women's league. While in theory would be a good idea, I think it's a little more impractical than the former, as there simply aren't going to be enough trans women athletes to fill out the spots necessary to make these leagues sustainable. However, if there ever are enough women to make leagues like this work, or maybe the numbers of qualifiers and competitors in said leagues are adjusted to make it work, this could be a good alternative.

Trans women just compete against men. Probably would be the least popular of these three ideas. The argument against this is "If someone is a trans women and wants to be accepted as a woman, then competing against men would be an impediment to those desires." However, it shouldn't be viewed as an insult. The pinnacle of women's athletic achievement is to compete against men. It rarely happens, and when that instance does occur when a female athlete is so dominant that they have earned the right to compete against men, it should be(and is) celebrated. There is no greater praise for a woman to say she was so good at her craft, she was able to climb out of the ranks of women's athletics and compete against men. So in this case, it doesn't necessarily have to be something viewed as "disrespectful." Still, probably viewed as the least practical solution of the three.

And those are just three ideas. Smarter people than me could come up with more ideas than that which make sense and give the fairest of opportunities possible to all parties. What we can't do is allow blatant and clear unfairness to continue and affect women's sports as we know it. If this trend continues, women's sports will be forever damaged. World records unachievable by biological women will sit atop the leaderboards across all sports, demoralizing biological women who have aspirations of competing right out of the gate knowing those records can never be broken, so why even bother? Young female athletes may drift away from pursuing sports at a young age if they feel there will be competitors in their leagues that will always have an advantage over them no matter how hard and often they train. And over time, though it will start small, and more and more trans women join leagues, we'll have fewer and fewer biological women competing in sports. Tarnishing all women's records and competitive achievements they have earned throughout the decades prior. How as a society can we claim to love and respect women and equality for women, if we are willing to stain all their accomplishments? Women have nowhere else to go as it currently stands if they can't even compete in leagues if their own. It's not like they can all just jump to men's leagues and start competing. Men have the luxury of not having to worry about the trans sports issue. There is no biological advantage of a trans man competing against men. This issue only affects biological women.

Have I offered perfect solutions? Perhaps not. Though sometimes in life perfect solutions don't exist. Often in life, you can't have solutions to dilemmas that all parties are going to completely be content with. And in those situations, the best answers to those problems need not be decided by emotion or morality, but by logic and reason. The best decisions in life are often made with no emotional investment, and doing what makes the most sense when analyzing all factors. You can be both supportive of trans rights and trans people and not side with them on every issue. There is a narrative out there that if you don't fully capitulate to marginalized groups on every single societal issue, the reason is that you "hate them." I'm sorry, but if that's the way you feel, I'm here to tell you that's not how it works. It's a completely baseless and foolish argument that holds no water under the slightest amount of scrutiny. You can be a marginalized person and still be on the wrong side of an issue. Again, logic and reason decide what is right and wrong, not someone's identity or immutable characteristics. Inclusion should never supersede rationality and fairness. Not to mention, not all trans people feel that trans women should be able to compete against biological women anyway. There have been prominent members of the trans community, like Caitlyn Jenner - a former Olympic champion and a trans woman, who feel that it is unfair. What a lot of people don't understand is the trans community is not a monolith. Like any other demographic, they're a group of unique individuals with different ideas, beliefs, and opinions.

Is this a topic I'm super passionate about? No, though I do have an opinion on it and find it interesting to discuss and analyze, as there are so many layers to this debate. However, I always try to put myself into the shoes of others, and asked myself how I would feel if I had a daughter who trained hard for much of her life, only to miss out on qualifying in a particular competition because someone in the competition had biological advantages that were impossible for her to overcome based on something they can't control, like their sex. Think that is an overblown concern? Ask Reka Gyorgy, a female swimmer who missed out on the chance to make the Finals, being 17th ranked, because Lia Thomas was competing and claimed one of those spots. And as the acceptance of trans people in society continues to grow over time, as it of course should, and more trans athletes come out and join sports leagues, how many more Reka Gyorgy's are there going to be? How many women are going to miss out on scholarships and their dreams simply because they were born in a woman's body and with female anatomy?

Right now we exist in an odd place on this topic. Where per most polls, the majority of people disapprove of trans women athletes competing against biological women, but are too afraid to put their names behind it and come out and say it publicly, because they could lose their jobs, scholarships, and potentially be harassed online by angry activists. Over time, I do believe it's an inevitability that trans women athletes will be separated from biological women in athletics. The reason I feel that way? As of now, it's been largely mediocre or lower tier male athletes who transitioned to become trans women. At some point, it seems inevitable that elite world class male athletes will come out as trans and transition to become women athletes. And at that point, if someone like Lia Thomas, who was a mediocre male swimmer ranked 462nd is dominating women's swimming competitions and beating top tier swimmers; imagine someone with the physical prowess of a LeBron James or a Connor McDavid, or a Bryce Harper, or a Michael Phelps transitioning and competing in women's leagues. They would dominate to such a degree, it would make their entire leagues a complete and total laughingstock. You'd have women's teams with those players beating other women's teams by 50 points per game, every single game. You'd have trans swimmers beating the entire field in swimming by 5+ laps. Women's sports would turn into a complete and total mockery, and at that point it would be impossible for larger mainstream audiences to ignore. 

As of right now, there still aren't enough trans women athletes competing for it to become much more than "the story of the week" and there wasn't been widespread competitive balance issues affecting all women's sports leagues. But that time is coming. Whether it's in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or longer... it's coming. And when it does, we'll see how serious we are as a society in the way in which we tackle it.