I saw the subject line of this topic on a bumper sticker on the way to work today. The sticker had no further explanation, so I think it is assuming that I'm already fully briefed on some facet of the gun lobby's argument that eludes me.
What do people mean when they say this?
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
Not endorsing this article, but it should give you some idea of what such a claim is about.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Weird guilt-by-association argument. So ... there have been gun control laws enacted in the past by racists for racist purposes, and therefore all gun control is racist?
It's really frightening to me that someone considered that a good enough argument to be worth promoting.
I guess racism is such a taboo that people are hoping even the slightest taint will make an opposing position untenable ...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Geoff, everything is racist. Didn't you know that?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Wow, that's a really tenuous argument.
A better case could be made for regionalism or classism in the modern day. It's interesting that the ban on "Saturday night specials" firearms is traditionally brought up in this argument, but the author never touches on it.
The argument goes that with the banning of those types of cheap firearms, the people at the lowest end of the economic scale (and in the 1960s this was generally considered to be minorities) could not afford firearms for protection. Some have even stretched the argument to say that it was a decided attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of civil rights activists, even though the vast majority of them were committed to peaceful change.
It's a touchy subject and I think Geoff has hit the nail right on the head with his assessment.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Geoff, you are denying something is racist. This has been a traditional tactic used by racists for centuries. Hence, you, dear sir, are a racist.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Avenue Q...so very wrong, yet sorta funny.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
To answer your question No I think people have forgotten the meaning of the word...
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
So what about those countries who have gun control laws and do not have the downright neurotic racial tension between blacks, whites and hispanics seared so traumatically into their national consciences that exists in America?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Do they have the same history of relations between the races that America has?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I don't know much about the roots of gun control, but I don't think it's a racist idea today.
However, I have no problem with a court that would apply a "suspect classification" to gun control laws.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Wow, I only finished the second paragraph before bursting out in uncontrolled fits of saying expletives while pretending to cough. I'm white. I don't like gun control. What's that say? Am I enlightened? Or do I just like guns?
Wow, that sounded kind of redneck at the end! (grinning proudly)
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Interesting... never heard of racist gun control before...
I'm white and I support the right to bear arms. An armed population is a free population. Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Amen Silver!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:An armed population is a free population.
Well, the parts of it that aren't currently bleeding out of gunshot wounds, anyway.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
:\
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, 99.9% of gun owners aren't in the business of shooting at people, or getting shot themselves. We're kind of weird that way.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
By the way, I made up the 99.9%, as opposed to doing actual research. I'll chalk it up to rounding errors if there's a better number somewhere.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You're also apparently not into accurate statistics.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, I'm technically supposed to be working, so I didn't feel like looking them up. How about 99.9% of the gun-toting people I know, +- 0.1%? Of course, living in the country, we have a different view of guns than city folk, as I learned talking to the wife's family
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You're also apparently not into accurate statistics.
Do you have any statistics that show that many/most gun owners have ever actually shot another person? Your earlier comment appears to suggest that most gun owners have done so, but I don't see any info to back that up.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm sorry. Are you asking me to prove that the claim that 99.9% of gun owners aren't into shooting people is inaccurate?
Which leads me to my next point, I'm mostly just funning with ya. I'm kind of ambivilent about gun control and such. I do sort of have a problem with gun nuts and the incredibly stupid things they say.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:An armed population is a free population.
Well, the parts of it that aren't currently bleeding out of gunshot wounds, anyway.
No, I'm saying that this comment appeared to imply that most people who own guns are likely to actually shoot somebody. Maybe I am reading to much into your comment, and judging from you saying you are mostly joking around, I probably am. If so, just tell me to keep my mouth shut and I will.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Now, after years of scientific research into this matter, surely MrSquicky isn't disputing my numbers He's just noticing my brilliant use of numbers I pull from the air!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Aerto, A goodly number of the people I know own guns. I myself like to go shooting from time to time (although when it comes down to it, I prefer archery). If most people who own guns were likely to shoot people, with my personality, I'd already be dead.
But, as I said, I have a problem with gun nuts and gun nut slogans. I find the fetishizing and power fantasies that often go along with gun nuttitude distrubing. Guns aren't really that important. They don't form the bulwark against tyranny. There are tons of much, much more important factors. Countries like England appear to be able to remain free while banning guns. Also, as with most "freedoms", there is a safety cost that goes along with it. In this case, leaving aside the career criminals that are going to get guns anyway, you get a lot of stupid people using and/or storing their guns irresponsibly. The safety cost of this is, from my perspective, pretty high.
But while that was definitely an undercurrent, I was pretty much just joking.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerto:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You're also apparently not into accurate statistics.
Do you have any statistics that show that many/most gun owners have ever actually shot another person? Your earlier comment appears to suggest that most gun owners have done so, but I don't see any info to back that up.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that someone with a gun is more likely to have shot someone than someone without a gun.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by dh:
quote:Originally posted by Aerto:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You're also apparently not into accurate statistics.
Do you have any statistics that show that many/most gun owners have ever actually shot another person? Your earlier comment appears to suggest that most gun owners have done so, but I don't see any info to back that up.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that someone with a gun is more likely to have shot someone than someone without a gun.
Yes, but that is not what I was asking. What I was asking is what percentage of people who own a gun (legally) have ever shot someone. I'm curious to know what that percentage would be but am too lazy to try and find out myself.
MrSquicky:
There is no doubt that there are some nuts out there, but I don't think that the vast majority of gun owners fall into this category. Guns certainly are not the bulwark of liberty that they may have once been, but I think they still serve a purpose for safety and psychological reassurance. Provided they are properly stored, cared for, and used.
[ November 23, 2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Aerto ]
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I really think education is a big help, too. I know a lot of parents that were a little too free in handing their child a gun. I do have a friend who was shot, because another friend forgot that bullets don't magically stop when they hit the ground... and they tend to riccochet off of rocks.
dh, there's a big difference between a legal gun owner and someone who "has a gun". We go through some pretty vigourous checks (I think that last guy may have been a little shifty, I've never had a body cavity search before as part of the background check) and have my fingerprints on file at the sherrif's office. Tack on that I'm a fairly decent member of the community, I have a pretty good incentive to NOT go around shooting people. Or, of course, to go around being shot by other people.
Posted by seespot (Member # 7388) on :
When we say "gun owners" are we talking about the law abiding citizens who have purchased firearms through legal means and would not purchase them if they were illegal? Or are we talking about people who have a gun in their posession who doesn't care if they aquired it legally or otherwise? The latter group might prefer aquiring the weapon illegally, so there is no paper trail.
Sorry if that was a little jumbled.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, I know legitimate gun owners who don't feel there should be a paper trail, anyway. Can't say I mind the Feds checking on gun buyers, though. Then again, i've not been one of the people caught up in identity mistakes, either.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Dude, you have a drinking problem.
No I don't.
Denial! First sign! Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I do not having a drinking problem! Uh oh....
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It's those who are legally allowed to own guns who sell arms to the illegal purchasers. And the NRA's main mission is to increase gun sales by increasing the fear level through making sure that those folks can continue selling guns to criminals.
The irony is that the NRA's slogan/misinterpretation of the "right to bear arms" is in knowingly direct echo of white supremacist thugs who created the JimCrow South after the CivilWar by intimidating police, prosecutors, and judges to prevent equal treatment under the Law regardless of race, creed, or color.
[ November 23, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
What the hell does "Right to Bear Arms" have to do with preventing "equal treatment under the law..."? And, considering it's fairly illegal to own most full-auto weapons without some serious governemtn paperwork (and even then many are illegal), it would be pretty difficult for legal gun owners to sell them to criminals. The ONE person I know who has went through all the government hoops to be allowed to have such weapons had to loan most of them to museums, to keep his neighbors from getting twitchy.
"Right to Bear Arms" is a pretty easy one to interpret. As extreme as the NRA is, they are the only ones even trying to maintain our basic rights in this matter. Legal gun owners are, for the most part, responsible. Of course, the few bad eggs are the ones who create a negative stereotype - that seems to be the way the world works.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
He's just noticing my brilliant use of numbers I pull from the air!