How racism fuels the pro gun movement

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 129
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
I’ve always found statistics in gun debates useless in the sense that we will always gravitate towards the statistics which affirm the position we already hold, and there is no shortage of convincing statistics on both sides of the gun debate. So when discussing these differences I prefer to look at this from a much simpler standpoint; if we step back, any argument using statistics to favor less gun restrictions is ultimately arguing that more guns results in less gun violence.

This argument is of course absurd on its face, or to be more diplomatic, counterintuitive. So to be charitable, I believe that most gun enthusiasts who make these arguments fail to recognize the core of their own position.

To try and steel man it; the idea is not to reduce gun violence. This is about the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves, and their safety should not be compromised because of those who don’t follow the law. As Wayne Lapier famously stated “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

I have always been amazed at both how wide spread and also how childishly simplistic this kind of thinking is. Essentially, the world is full of good guys and bad guys. That’s it. There’s no nuance here we should be concerning ourselves with. No moral dilemmas, no good guys who made bad decisions, no “bad guys” who are also themselves victims, etc.

So if one has convinced themself that gun violence is the result of bad guys with guns, then the next logical step is to accept that the places where gun violence is at its worst are the places with the most bad guys. And what do you know, it just so happens to be black neighborhoods.

Acceptance of this narrative is the very thing the “woke left” is talking about when it points out racism in America. Telling someone they are a racist does not mean accusing them of hating back people and spending their weekends at clan rallies. It’s pointing to, among other things, a mindset where one views the black community as less than to the point where a problem like gun violence could easily be accepted as “their own fault because they don’t know how to conduct themselves responsibly”.

To be clear, one can find plenty of other reasons to oppose gun control so I’m not arguing that all 2A enthusiasts are racist, but when you step back and look at the national conversation, you look at who benefits and who loses from our unwillingness to do anything about gun safety in America, and you put them together, it becomes very obvious that racism plays a big part of it. If white neighborhoods were plagued by gun violence the way black neighborhoods have been I sincerely doubt the “bad guy with a gun” narrative would resonate anywhere nearly as strong as it does.
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
You’re misinformed there bub! More guns = less violence. 





Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
So I'm racist?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 If white neighborhoods were plagued by gun violence...
Oh, you mean like in the prohibition era? Wonder what those racist whities did to fix that problem? Pretty sure it wasn't ever described as a racist solution in any history book.

But yeah, just keep on thinking that a random Black person in America today is 8 times more likely to pull a gun out and kill someone than a random white person according to FBI data: Keep thinking the FBI is racist for stating that fact. Maybe the head in the sand approach is the most effective solution to gun violence merely by being the least racist solution.

I mean look at New York and Chicago. Those polices addressing gun violence are certainly near racist free.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
So I'm racist?
Read the entire post, that includes the last paragraph.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
a random Black person in America today is 8 times more likely to pull a gun out and kill someone than a random white person according to FBI data: Keep thinking the FBI is racist for stating that fact.
I never suggested nor implied such a thing. Next time, try absorbing the point before reflexively responding to it.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
More guns = less violence. 
Right. I suppose if our goal was to reduce car accidents, we should get rid of all other forms of transportation and make sure everyone has a car. And to reduce stabbings, we should make sure everyone in America carries a knife. Makes sense.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,130
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405_2
You’re misinformed there bub! More guns = less violence. 
Unbelievable. That’s why there is so much violence in Europe? Oh wait, there isn’t 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I never suggested nor implied such a thing. Next time, try absorbing the point before reflexively responding to it.
What you are implying is that the gun violence is allowed to happen in places like Chicago and New York because racist people want blacks to kill themselves. 

I have never heard of the constituents of those cities claim anyone responsible for policy, especially the mayors, were racist for failing to do much about the violence.

Honestly, I don't know what facts you are using to back up your opinion.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
You probably internally discriminate as much as everyone else does.

Though you may not be outwardly intolerant.

Racism is a misused epithet.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
I'm not sure that guns in the U.S. need fuelling.

You have an evolved gun culture, that fuels itself.

400000000 and counting.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Read the entire post, t hat includes the last paragraph.
I did. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that there was more to your argument than what essentially is a negligible factor that may or may not "fuel"--your word, not mine--the pro-gun movement. If we're talking about a "national conversation" that excludes what you admit are plenty of reasons one can support the pro-gun movement, then ask, as a participant in this national conversation, as minimal as it may be, am I racist according to your judgement?

Or, and this is what I suspect, are you seeking an angle in which you can attempt to disqualify support for, lack of better terms, "gun rights"--i.e. alleging racism--by invoking supposed character defects that have absolutely no relevance in one's proprietary claim over guns?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
You probably internally discriminate as much as everyone else does.
I'm assuming that mere discrimination isn't the premise of Double_R's allegations but "racist chauvinism" which colloquially has been conflated with racism and its adjectival qualifiers (i.e. "racist.")

Though you may not be outwardly intolerant.
No, I'm outwardly intolerant.

Racism is a misused epithet.
It really is.


ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
...how childishly simplistic this kind of thinking is....
Welcome to Earth.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, I don't know what facts you are using to back up your opinion.
It would help if you actually listened to the words I write so you know what that opinion is.

What you are implying is that the gun violence is allowed to happen in places like Chicago and New York because racist people want blacks to kill themselves.
No. What I’m implying is that much of the political right’s opposition to gun control laws stems from an overly simplistic world view where everyone is either a good guy or a bad guy. I then explained how this world view is ultimately rooted in racism, because in order to maintain this world view one would have to accept the notion that those communities facing serious challenges with gun violence (like the black community) are ultimately filled with “bad guys”, and that this then explains the problem.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
one would have to accept the notion that those communities facing serious challenges with gun violence (like the black community) are ultimately filled with “bad guys”, and that this then explains the problem.

Really don't understand where you are pulling this one out from. Plenty of good blacks have stopped murderous blacks in New York or Chicago.

source something maybe that proves any group feels that way? I mean it's really easy to flip racism around with no care, but this one is really wild.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
If we're talking about a "national conversation" that excludes what you admit are plenty of reasons one can support the pro-gun movement, then ask, as a participant in this national conversation, as minimal as it may be, am I racist according to your judgement?
I don’t know nor do I care if you are a racist. You already acknowledged that this is a broad conversation, so why turn it back as if this has anything to do with any individual?

Or, and this is what I suspect, are you seeking an angle in which you can attempt to disqualify support for, lack of better terms, "gun rights"--i.e. alleging racism--by invoking supposed character defects that have absolutely no relevance in one's proprietary claim over guns?
No. This is about diagnosing a broad political movement in broad terms in an attempt to better understand why certain positions are as prevalent as they are within our society. It’s the same thing every political commentator engages in every time one discusses “the other side”. Nothing new or nefarious here. Recognizing a prevalence for a particular position does not negate any argument which aligns with the same cause.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
to better understand why certain positions are as prevalent as they are within our society.
No offense, but you are doing a shitacular job at steelmanning the side you don't like in order to "better understand"
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Really don't understand where you are pulling this one out from. Plenty of good blacks have stopped murderous blacks in New York or Chicago.
This is kind of like the “I have a black friend” thing.

People base their opinions of groups on what they consider to be the norm within that group. Saying “men are stronger than women” for example does not conflict with acknowledging that there are plenty of women out there who are far stronger than many men.

So acknowledging that there are plenty of good black people does not conflict with one having a low opinion of black people as a group.

It’s the attitude towards the group that I’m addressing in this thread.

source something maybe that proves any group feels that way? I mean it's really easy to flip racism around with no care, but this one is really wild.
This isn’t something I read on Google which I can source for you. It’s based off of life observations and countless hours engaging in and observing in debates where these same retorts frequently come up. Have you never engaged in gun a debate? Are you not aware of the common arguments in favor of gun rights and in particular the ones I am referencing? 

This really isn’t that complicated. I’m not just flipping racism around, I’ve laid out for you step by step how we get from the starting point to the end point. If this is too complicated for you feel free to inquire further so I can help you understand it.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
No offense, but you are doing a shitacular job at steelmanning the side you don't like in order to "better understand"
If only there was someone intellectually honest enough here to engage with me by explaining what the “other side” believes and why my model of their views is wrong.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 I’ve laid out for you step by step how we get from the starting point to the end point. If this is too complicated for you feel free to inquire further so I can help you understand it.
I'm just wondering why your start and end point is racism when steelmanning a diverse thought. Don't you have any originality?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
a low opinion of black people as a group.
But realty is a lot more complex. There are actually a great many diverse groups of black communities, all with different values and prejudices. 

And opinions can vary wildly between these diverse groups. Why would you assume "a group" as if there can only exist a singular monolithic group?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just wondering why your start and end point is racism when steelmanning a diverse thought.
The starting point to my argument isn’t racism, that’s the conclusion. I’ve explained this in detail, you aren’t trying to understand it.

There are actually a great many diverse groups of black communities, all with different values and prejudices.
 We can split groups up all day long, most people don’t. This conversation is about the group as a whole, changing the subject doesn’t advance the conversation.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
most people don’t.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. Most people are generally not nearly as simple minded as you believe. And I think you know this with your "Black friend argument" admission, but you choose to conveniently ignore it in your extremely flimsy steelman construct.

Perhaps assuming monolithic thought allows for an even more casual dismissal of diverse thought than would otherwise be tolerated?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Imagine a white person liking a group of blacks that tolerates white people while also disliking a completely different group of blacks that hates white people.....unfathomable!
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
I don’t know nor do I care if you are a racist. You already acknowledged that this is a broad conversation, so why turn it back as if this has anything to do with any individual?
Broad conversations often involve the various dynamics of this society. The fundamental component of any society is the condition of the individuals who comprise it. You shouldn't care whether or not I'm racist, because it doesn't matter as far as it concerns rights. So what is your goal in your attempt to create, though I presume you would prefer the term, "identify" this division among those who support and those who are against "gun rights," if one's being racist doesn't matter?

No. This is about diagnosing a broad political movement in broad terms in an attempt to better understand why certain positions are as prevalent as they are within our society.
Diagnosis would naturally implicate a remedy, would it not? In your submitting your allegations to this conversation's purview, what remedy, if any, do you expect to come from them?

Recognizing a prevalence for a particular position does not negate any argument which aligns with the same cause.
Did you recognize it, or are you alleging it? You're taking a legitimate contention, i.e. guns don't kill people, bad people who use guns violently do, and arguing that maintaining said contention is racist and primarily benefits racists (a tall order.) And since you admitted that racism, individually, is of no concern, then why does "racism" have any relevance in national conversation concerning gun rights? Is racism enough of a reason to create a referendum on gun rights? No?

Then it is as I suspect, and you're just attempting to disqualify the position by invoking an irrelevant platitude.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
It’s a weird mix here. You’re being both charitable (in terms of not really attacking any statistic) and making a huge stretch at the same time (by saying some trite phrase is evidence of racism when nobody saying that phrase is simultaneously thinking ‘black people bad’)

Honestly, this same thinking could apply to saying murderers and rapists are bad people. Is it racist to say that? Statistically, blacks do it more. But when I say rapists and murderers are bad, I don’t attribute that to anyone of any race who hasn’t done those things.

This is a very desperate attempt to inject race into a debate in which it doesn’t belong.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
And a numbers game is much more likely to be the reason for nothing changing rather than a race one

Since neighborhoods are more or less segregated by race, we’ll do a little generalizing. So, a subset of 13% of neighborhoods have a very big gun crime problem….. so, that means that it isn’t a big issue for more than 87% of neighborhoods. Why on earth would you restricts ~90% of people? Why would the political will be there when most people aren’t negatively impacted by guns ever?

It has nothing to do with race. I could equally easily suggest that Congress hates young men because they are much more likely to be killed by guns.
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Guns n cars = apples to oranges. 🤦‍♂️
Ignorant false equivalency fallacy there, novice. 
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
USA to Europe (what part?), false equivalency and red herring fallacy. Typical. Stupid. Retort. From. You. Broken. Jarhead.