• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun control from another perspective

2 ad homs and a dumbass sarcastic comment. I know the idea of a black man with a gun frightens you guys, but does anyone have the balls to actually address the content of the article?
 
Tony said:
2 ad homs and a dumbass sarcastic comment. I know the idea of a black man with a gun frightens you guys, but does anyone have the balls to actually address the content of the article?
Click to expand...
Cause the content is garbage perhaps? It's mainly a rant about how gun control was racist 100-200 years ago, with a patheric attempt to link this to the present at the end of the article.
 
That is one way to look at it.

Or it may be a reminder that we still have a way to go before we can proclaim as fact that current gun control efforts have absolutey no racist componenet to them.
 
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.
 
crimresearch said:
That is one way to look at it.

Or it may be a reminder that we still have a way to go before we can proclaim as fact that current gun control efforts have absolutey no racist componenet to them.
Click to expand...

Like what? I am generally against most gun control measures, but I have never heard of any pro gun control argument that mentions race in any way.

The current drug laws originally had some basis in racism as well, but I don't hear too many proponents of drug prohibition citing racial effects as one of the benefits.

It is certainly possible that any given law may have more of an impact on some racial groups than another, but I really doubt the current intent behind gun control laws is racist. If it is I haven't seen/heard any evidence of it.
 
The current face of racism doesn't always wear Klan robes..it can also wear Birkenstocks and drive a Volvo...and still cross to the other side of the street to avoid minorities.

Proposals specifically targeting urban public housing in minority areas, or requiring that permits be obtained through upscale political connections may not scream 'I'm racist'..but if the end result is that another minority is dead, do you really think that certain people will be shedding too many tears?
 
crimresearch said:
That is one way to look at it.

Or it may be a reminder that we still have a way to go before we can proclaim as fact that current gun control efforts have absolutey no racist componenet to them.
Click to expand...
If that was his intention, perhaps he should have concentrated more on the present, rather than going on about something as thoroughly irrelevant as the intentions behind centuries old gun laws.
 
crimresearch said:
Proposals specifically targeting urban public housing in minority areas, or requiring that permits be obtained through upscale political connections may not scream 'I'm racist'..but if the end result is that another minority is dead, do you really think that certain people will be shedding too many tears?
Click to expand...

This assumes that the increased possession of guns would reduce the number of gun deaths. The argument against is that the more guns = more deaths, therefore the more restricted the acquisition, the lower the fatality rate.


(I'm not saying I agree with either of those arguments, though. They seem too simplistic.)
 
TragicMonkey said:
This assumes that the increased possession of guns would reduce the number of gun deaths. The argument against is that the more guns = more deaths, therefore the more restricted the acquisition, the lower the fatality rate.


(I'm not saying I agree with either of those arguments, though. They seem too simplistic.)
Click to expand...

Monkey!! You KNOW this!!

Increased freedom for everyone to own as many guns as Ted Kennedy, and Dianne Feinstein is a *gooooood* thing!
:p
 
Try this...

TragicMonkey said:
This assumes that the increased possession of guns would reduce the number of gun deaths. The argument against is that the more guns = more deaths, therefore the more restricted the acquisition, the lower the fatality rate.


(I'm not saying I agree with either of those arguments, though. They seem too simplistic.)
Click to expand...

Try tracking death rates from firearms in US municipalities or states with the highest rate of legal gun ownership versus the death rate from firearms in munipalities with the lowest rate of legal gun ownership.
 
The point

I don't think the point of the article was to say that people who advocate gun prohibition are doing it out of conscious racism, but I think there certainly is some tiny unconscious racist element to it in some cases. The point was to explain how gun ownship control has its roots in racism and the desire to maintain control and limit the rights of the powerless. Now the argument is that we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. In fact, it is only out of the hands of the law abiding we can ever hope to keep them. That seems pretty ass backward to me.

My opinion is this and if you feel you must detest me for it, fine. I believe that gun ownership prohibition, particularly in those environments where there is the most restriction on ownership - typically urban areas - specifically targets those people who have the most genuine need for self defense and specifically prevents those same people from having any legal means of effective self protection. Clearly, the criminals who prey on those people are not in any way constrained by gun control laws from acquiring firearms and yet some people would argue for the morality of disarming those people who are their victims.

It is also true that for the people in those areas the notion of police protection is a laughable notion (which it pretty much is in any case - "call 911!!!"- unless, of course you live in a gated community with million dollar houses.) And I would argue that even if the intention of gun control is not racist, its net effect in many cases is.
 
There has been a history of gun registration to prevent blacks from owning guns. A lot of this took place directly after the civil war.

It's kinda like marriage license. A lot of places used marriage license to prevent white/black marriage.

I haven't read the article all the way yet, but it look like everything is in order. They cite their sources. That is a rare thing even on this board.
 
Tony said:
No you didn't.
Click to expand...
he gave it the detailed response it deserves...

Hey, maybe being required to register my car is racist too...can I get a refund?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom