This is exactly what I didn’t do, and generally try to avoid. Black people are not a monolith, nor a democratic body represented by the majority of its members. My comment does not imply that all black people want guns, it simply points out that there’s a diversity of opinion. And therefore it’s dishonest to characterize gun rights as a position that “no one who’s grown up being harassed by the cops for being the wrong skin color” would hold.
3 Likes
Did you mean to say, “Source?”
Because you are doing exactly the same thing.
And then Reagan changed the law about open carry in CA, and good ol’ J. Edgar Hoover declared them “public enemy number one,” right before all the main leaders of the party were systematically killed.
0_o
Speaking for myself as a Black person; this isn’t about you, and merely owning a firearm isn’t the solution to the myriad of problems facing my community.
Arguing endlessly over firearm regulation as if it’s a personal attack upon you and your ideals isn’t helping the situation.
7 Likes
5 Likes
Completely agree with that. I have been saying for a long time that the worst crime areas are symptoms of several things compounding the issue of violent crime with the current system and government programs doing nothing to help alleviate the violence. The welfare system is a band aid that helps appease the situation, but when things get so bad that violent crime seems like a viable solution for improving your life, no one thing is going to fix that. The current policing model and prison model are only making things worse.
I tend to not take things personally. I am combating ignorance of laws, ignorance of a group of people that many people have a lot of opinions about but with zero to little any first hand experience with, and calling for a rational look at the issue with attempts to put things in perspective, vs arm waving hysteria.
Though it does get a TAD personal when I have to deal with the constant trope or stereotype of gun owners being “rootin’ tootin’ racists and homophobes”. Sure there are racist gun owners, and I call them out when I see them. But if the NRA’s goal was to keep guns out of the hands of minorities, they would be supporting the laws that do just that. Instead they are doing the complete opposite. Ironically the laws and schemes proposed by some democrats (and members or this forum) would largely affect poor minorities the worst.
And to illustrate my point.
That video was made in part as a response to the Trayvon Martin shooting. The NRA officially declined to comment on the case at the time (except to complain about the media “sensationalizing” the tragedy) but it’s no secret that Zimmerman got more support from their leaders and members than Martin did.
I don’t believe I heard even ONE spokesperson for the NRA or open carry movement remark that things would have gone better if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun to protect himself.
2 Likes
You are honestly confused why no one in the NRA suggested a 17 year old who was a recreation drug user, both of which would preclude him form buying a gun legally, should have been armed?
1 Like
And that is certainly not a “constant” trope here at bbs. So why are you bringing it up here at bbs?
Ah, they’re working to put guns INTO the hands of minorities. Yeah, riiigght.
But then, maybe they are doing just that. Hell, it’s more sales for the gun manufacturers and merchants that support the NRA, yay! And the higher numbers of shootings would also provide more fuel for the common gun-lovers argument that the REAL issue everyone should be talking about is black-on-black crime etc etc ad nauseam. Winning!
You know something? This line of argument from you, @zikzak, and other gun lovers is sickening. The reason it makes me sick is that I only hear any particular, informed concern from you and others who trot out this sudden concern with black people’s problems when it intersects with your own interest in fighting against gun control. You’re appropriating for your own interests black communities and their problems.
And you may fancy yourself the rational defender of common sense here who doesn’t take things personally, but it’s bloody obvious that you’re instead appropriating black communities and their problems for personal reasons.
2 Likes
I mean, that’s true, but what bearing does that have on the discussion? Are you implying that if there were fewer guns available, that this would cease to be a plausible justification for police? I don’t agree. It’s already a highly implausible justification in many cases, but it still works for the police. The problem is not the existence of guns, it’s that police are considered infallible and black people are considered killlable.
I agree, but your “almost” qualification is important.
1 Like
No it really isn’t; it’s a ridiculously flawed system that barely works, and is often demonized by society.
I completely agree.
That isn’t evident from much of your commentary, unfortunately. Every gun post seems to turn into a battleground, arguing the exact same points ad nauseum, focusing on the aspects that concern you most, while seeming to ignore or dismiss other essential elements of the discussion. That’s rather problematic.
I personally have never said or even insinuated as much, but I noticed that you have a tendency to respond to people who have opposing viewpoints about firearms as if they all act and think exactly alike… and that’s just as unfair as the stereotypes and tropes that you are so adverse to being subjected to.
I made a joke once about force fields, alluding to how hopelessly futile the whole situation seems, and you took that as an opportunity to hop up on a soap box.
You can’t change anyone’s mind or perceptions by trying to argue them into the ground or lecturing them to death.
Every discussion on guns is not a platform for why you support having them, and how you are an example of a pro-gun person who is not bigoted or ignorant.
You don’t need to keep driving that point home.
When you insist upon doing so constantly, it kinda makes it seem as if you have no actual concern for the issues at hand, other than how they affect you personally.
3 Likes
Yes I do. That’s a major part of the reason police in the US shoot people far more frequently than police in the UK or Australia or other first-world countries that have few handguns. It’s not impossible that a suspect in one of those countries would be carrying a concealed firearm, but it’s unlikely enough that a cop would at least be expected to have a darn good reason for jumping to that conclusion.
3 Likes
I think this is a valid critique of some people, but not of me. I am consistently critical of structural racism in many contexts, most of which have nothing to do with gun control. It’s a lot more conspicuous when I discuss structural racism in connection with gun policy, though. Because unlike most discussions about racism where we’re on the same page, my position on guns directly contradicts the liberal platform.
That said, I think we definitely can get on the same page with a push to “disarm the police”. I’m much more concerned about the police than I am gun policy, and I think you are too.
1 Like
How would it even be possible to disarm the police without disarming the rest of the populace? Police have the same Second Amendment rights as everyone else. Both legally and practically, you can’t have a situation where any knucklehead in America can walk around carrying an assault rifle or a concealed handgun but the police are limited to billy clubs and pepper spray.
What we need is some kind of mutual disarmament treaty.
1 Like
It isn’t? I guess I missed the point of this satire and other similar posts on BB, the repeated bringing up of NRA support of the 1968 Gun Control Act and the California Mumford Act, and various other snark and insinuations.
Such as this. Thank you for illustrating the point.
And this. Because the ONLY time I have shown concern for blacks and other minorities is when it intersects with gun rights. Maybe you missed my posts condemning things like Stop and Frisk, the War on Drugs, the penal system, and many other issues.
I may not care enough. Maybe I go about it the “wrong” way. I am sure there are many more people even more passionate about the issue. I may not be the level 20 SJW some people are, but I try to be consistent in supporting individual rights for everyone.
But wait. Let’s just assume you’re right. Let’s just assume that I don’t care, but I am using minority rights as a pawn to increase gun rights. Are you saying you would SUPPORT a law that unfairly targets and affects minorities because you just couldn’t possibly get behind a broken clock who just happens to be right this time? (ETA - such as the recent “no fly-no buy” legislation?)
1 Like
Your reasoning makes sense, but it doesn’t reflect reality. I think the aspect you’re missing is that in America black people are considered fundamentally threatening and able to be killed without consequence. The question of guns is just icing.
1 Like
[quote=“zikzak, post:53, topic:80581”]
Because unlike most discussions about racism where we’re on the same page, my position on guns directly contradicts the liberal platform.[/quote]
You think I subscribe to the “liberal platform”? No. I do what I can from the left of wishy-washy, colorblind liberalism.
That said, I think we definitely can get on the same page with a push to “disarm the police”. I’m much more concerned about the police than I am gun policy, and I think you are too.
Again, your presumption about what I believe is inaccurate. I’m more than “concerned” about both, and I have no interest in trying to parse out which is the bigger problem.
You’re right, I meant to add another sentence about how it is horribly flawed and needs reform. Though I think the social programs enjoyed by other countries contributes to their lower violent crime.
Look, I am passionate about this subject, just as others are about other things. I don’t know what your “Can’t come to bed, someone is wrong on the internet.” sort of thing is, but this is one of mine.
But many people champion rights issues, whether that be for sex, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, privacy, encryption, surveillance, etc etc. I am gong to assume one or more of those topics are something that you support. (If not, just pretend I said something you are passionate about.)
If you repeatedly saw someone attacking your view, perpetuating negative stereotypes, repeating memes full of bad information, and making some rather absurd leaps in logic, at what point does your repeated defense become “problematic”? At what point do you let the racists or sexists or what ever just “have it”?
If you feel I am repetitive in my defense, it is because 1) i argue a lot of facts, and those don’t change, and 2) the misinformation and attacks are generally similar so the replies are similar.
They don’t typically take on the issue of race. But that is exactly the insinuation of this satire. That it would be super crazy if the NRA supported guns to minorities or gays. Of course the issue or rights like this is bigger than just separating into the “liberal” and “conservative” camps.
And when someone does suggest legislation that would unfairly target minorities, why wouldn’t I put point that out? That is bad! No matter if you want more gun control, laws that target people like that unfairly are bad laws. Period.
No you haven’t. And some of it could be me reading into something too much, misreading sarcasm or snark, or having a wrong outlook on a comment due to my bias. I try to temper things and I will continue to do so. Other times I tend to try to condense my replies that might be pulling from several sources, which gets me in trouble when people thing I am speaking only to them and i am not.
2 Likes
The best thing about this pot-stirring is that it’s a complicated issue, full of laugh/cringe and sadness at both the people who buy guns out of “urban” fears and the persons in inner city who are the targets of gun violence.
No shit; you don’t say?
I just wish that ‘passion’ didn’t often supersede the actual point of the discussion.
I don’t have that issue, sorry.
I figured it out a long time ago that I can’t effect any kind of meaningful change merely by arguing online. I know that I cannot ‘make’ anyone think differently, nor can I influence them to care, so I’m not going to stress myself out by trying.
I avoid many contentious conversations because I can usually recognize a ‘zero sum game’ from a mile off.
When I do feel the need to express my opinion, I try to make my points as clearly as possible without harping on them.
I also feel strongly about many things, but I know that my emotional investment isn’t felt as deeply by everyone else.
Thanks for that acknowledgement, as I hate just being lumped in arbitrarily. (That’s a trigger of mine.)
As long as you can own your bias, I can give you the benefit of the doubt, but I will say this:
Let your everyday actions be your defense against unfair stereotypes, rather than becoming instantly defensive every time someone makes a snarky comment or cracks a joke about “teh ammosexuals.”
And I say that as someone who’s lived my whole life defying the negative stereotypes that have been unfairly foisted unto me.
2 Likes
Nice avatar.
10 Likes
