Is gun control racist?

But even if not intentional or capricious, many gun laws disproportionately impact those who need a weapon the most: those who, due to economic and other factors, live in high crime areas which also have a concentrated minority population.
Click to expand...

I can believe that. I can also believe that there have been cases where discretionary CCW permits were denied to legitimate minority applicants simply because the LEO making the decision didn't trust the applicant to use the gun only in self defense.

But I'm convinced that the great majority of anti-gun folks sincerely believe that gun control will reduce gun crime. You can argue that they're naive or misguided, but you shouldn't assume that they're malicious.
 
I can believe that. I can also believe that there have been cases where discretionary CCW permits were denied to legitimate minority applicants simply because the LEO making the decision didn't trust the applicant to use the gun only in self defense.
Click to expand...

That would be racism, then, would it not?
 
Antipitas,
I can ask the question. Sez so right here on the back of my "race card". :D

Yes I believe it's racist on several counts. The most egregious example is the thought process:

1) DC, a heavily African American area, has a handgun ban.
2) Arlington, comparable in every way besides racial composition, does not.
3) DC currently has 20x the murder rate of Arlington.
4) Imposing gun control on Arlington will further reduce it's murder rate. Removing gun control from DC will further increase it's murder rate.

therefore

"All else being equal, the predominantly black population is expected to be more than 20x as murderous than it's less-black counterpart".

Why???

I posed this very same question over on DailyKos just last night. They didn't have a satisfactory answer.
I get that overall feeling of racism when discussing this subject with some of them. Not a "we gotta keep the black population under control" sorta racism (which I run across more often, sadly, from folks on the right), but more of a "we have to protect the poor ignorant savages from themselves" sorta racism.

But to be fair, the most ardent gun control supporters don't really seem to care whatsoever about race, class, or anything else (including reason). It's all about the guns to those folks.
 
To Quote
"I cannot believe that racism is the root of most anti-gun feeling today."

I can, but I have an odd definition of racism.

The way I see it, there are three predominant forms of racism.

Genetic/aryan based: IE, believing that the target race is born genetically inferior to your own. IE, Nazism, white supremacy, etc and so forth. (A form of racism that is waning in the US, but was predominant in the past.)

Cultural schism racism/steretyping: Basically the assumption that they are inferior because they are different then you, and assuming they are all the same. Its currently the main form of racism in the US currently, the first basic is assumption is that anyone who is different from you is by default inferior. This is pretty odvious in the American school system, as evinced by the battles and fights waged between various cliques and social groups. Race gets thrown into the mixture as well. This is typically shown by the racist who believes that ALL black people belong to gangs, do drugs, and are on welfare. The trap is that you can weave your way in and out of a nonrace based social group. Black people are stuck being judged by the Black culture. Regardless of thier own opinions or participation (Or the lack thereof) in it. A goth can cut his hair and become a prep, a yuppie can put on a cowboy hat and become a redneck. The black guy is stuck being judged by the color of his skin, and the "Black Culture" that people who don't know him automatically associate him with.


Sympathetic racism: The belief that a race is inferior, and must be aided by the Superior race if it is ever to succeed. What the liberals typically suffer from nowadays. They believe that Blacks are first and foremost incapable of overcoming any racism that they may encounter. They view it not as a hurdle to be overcome, but as a brick wall. So rather then encouraging african Americans to struggle against what they are facing, they try to lower the bar. Can't pass your classes? We'll make the tests easier. Can't get into college? We'll insist of racial quotas. Can't get a job? We'll pass affirmative action. Can't get a loan? We'll make the credit card company give you one.

These Politicos aren't going to step down from the Ivory tower and get their hands dirty, so they cast solutions from a distance. Why walk into the failing urban schools and find out what the real problems are when you can just throw money at the place and lower the test standards? Why come in and target aide towards the smart, hardworking, struggling blacks when you can just throw a check into a black neighborhood while you are rolling by in your Lexus? Why applaud thier success, when there is so much money to made pointing out the quitters, failures, stragglers, and those who haven't quite made it yet? Remember, the whole reason they are doing this is because they are "Superior" people helping out an "Inferior" race who can't help itself.

Gunn control is one of these racist programs. All the liberals know is that the "Inferior" race is at it again, hurting themselves. Don't bother going into the communities to find the real problems behind the symptoms. Just disarm the whole population present. In a typically white neighborhood, the city would go looking for the culprit. Any gangs would be forced out. The drug dealers would get busted. The bored kids on the corner would be told to move along, and a loitering ordinance or curfew would go into effect. An extra patrol or two would get scheduled. The city would try to get the citizens to set up a neighborhood watch. Damaged public property would be repaired, some lights would be put up. They'd send an officer to talk to the kids at school about gangs and drugs. "Can't bother doing that with this here "Inferior Race" they just won't get the message, cause they ain't smart enough. More drug dealers and gangs will pop up, because they're all a bunch of hoodlums on the inside. We could search for the problem, but they are the problem. So we're going to fix the problem by fixing them. Put some controls up and raise them like little children. Its for their own good."

As the old saying goes "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions."
 
I'd be willing to wager that, if people were honest, most participants on TFL have not read the amici nor the dissenting opinion for Heller -- and have, at most, merely skimmed through the majority decision in that case.

Some may have read Clayton Cramer's "Racist Roots of Gun Control," but more have probably only read what other people said about that work.

It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion with people who haven't done their homework, but the important thing is that most folks really are trying to keep up.

As for the thread topic itself: yes, gun control was racist in its origins and has been racist in its implementation in many cases. But it does our side little good to say so unless we also present the absolute facts alongside the allegation. Repeating the allegation itself just makes us sound like nutjobs, even though it's the absolute truth. If you haven't done your homework and cannot cite your facts, there's really no point in saying anything about it.
Click to expand...
The answer from pax, above, deserves repeating.

Thanks Kathy. You understood what I was getting at.
 
The question is whether gun control is racist. As others have noted, there is ample evidence to show that the first broad gun control laws were passed in southern states designed to specifically deprive post-Civil War African-Americans the right to arms. Others have noted that in many cities which strictly control guns, a disproportionate number of minorities are denied permits or licenses. If this is shown to be true, then this would be evidence of discrimination based upon "disparate impact."

Showing disparate impact can be complicated and requires experts to testify about what the data really means. Once disparate impact is shown, then a prima facie case of discrimination has been made. This means there is an inference the practice was done with discriminatory intent and the burden switches to the other side to explain why the practice was adopted. The fact finder then determines if this is a legitimate reason or is simply a pretext. Some "conservatives" criticize the disparate impact method of proving discrimination because it takes the focus away from the facts in an individual case.

I am not aware of any case where this theory of proving discrimination has been used in the gun control context; e.g. licensing for handguns inside the home. That may be because this was not firmly entrenched as a personal right before Heller. In the wake of Heller, those licensing systems which appear to disproportionately disfavor minorities may be subject to attack on a discriminatory impact theory.

So, maybe some of the gun control laws out there are discriminatory because they have a disparate impact on minorities.
 
Historically there's been racism in regard to gun control ie. there was in the early 20th century a lot of propaganda about 'increased stopping power needed to stop drug crazed minorities...' and going back to the days of slavery, slaves were often forbidden from posessing firearms.The old Black Panther Party reacted militantly to gun control...and embraced the 2nd Amend.


However, I'd say gun control is more complex than simply saying its racist ie. a lot of gun control is I think a conflict between the needs of rural and urban environments. Folks in rural environments<no matter what their race> tend to be more accepting of guns in their traditional frontier/hunting/self-defense role. Folks in urban environments tend to see guns as solely related to crime and criminality.


I remember a few years back interviewing an urban gang member. His grandmomma was constantly finding things like 1911 .45 pistols in his dirty laundry. He was 14yrs.old and lived in an urban housing project. You can see how folks in urban areas are concerned - and do have a legitimate beef in regard to 'guns.' However, when I was 14yrs.old growing up in a rural environment, it was normal for me to have a .22 and a 12ga. - but I was not running in a gang, and my weapons were in the spirit of Daniel Boone - not
Al Capone or TuPak.


The problem is when these urban and rural sensibilities collide. Thomas Jefferson had a rural sensibility. The founders would be dismayed at the notion of banning guns or registering them... In fairness ,however, I don't know what they would do if they lived in our modern environment. I have no doubt that some of them would want to reword the 2nd Amend. Heck, Alexander Hamiliton wanted a dictatorship. One of the big myths is that the founders agreed on everything. They created a great constitution...but they also left a big mess for future generations to refine and resolve. The 2nd Amend.is good but it did not envision submachine guns,automobiles, and the modern extent of urbanization. Whatever happened to Alexander Hamilton? Oh, now I remember, he was shot in a duel. It just figures...doesn't it.

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top