SteveWinwood
Member
These posts will be ignored don't worry.
At most we'll get a 'but gun crime is on the way down'! Yep, from crazy high to really high. Congrats.
Edit: Oh so its okay that America has some masacres because Norway had that one.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is Gun Control in the United States Racist in Origin?
- Thread starter Manos: The Hans of Fate
- Start date
- Status
At most we'll get a 'but gun crime is on the way down'! Yep, from crazy high to really high. Congrats.
Edit: Oh so its okay that America has some masacres because Norway had that one.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I'm happy you admit that despite increased gun ownership, gun violence has decreased in the United States, even if you must be backhanded about it.
Also from the quote
That made me lol
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Considering that both areas ban conceal carry (Chicago in total and NYC via impossible to obtain permits), who is carrying a gun in those areas?
So because one mass shooting manages to happen, this means that gun control doesn't work?
Angry Fork
Member
I like how Manos tends to ignore one of the main reasons (THE main reason after slavery was abolished) for gun proliferation among minorities which is police brutality. And if this still goes on today against minorities (or poor people, as the war is now against the have-nots rather than a particular race) then do you advocate them carrying weapons to defend themselves against trigger happy racist capital defending police officers? I would be okay with this but your defense of militarized state gangs seems to contradict this.
Anyway once again he ignores historical context like when people say democrats supported slavery not acknowledging that dem/repub definitions have essentially switched or at least changed dramatically over time.
Gun control before the 70s was obviously racist, the black panther self defense stuff being most obvious, but after that point minorities were less and less seen as inferior or separate species and so were 'officially' supposed to be treated the same as whites. The context of the debate changed over time.
That's not to say they were treated the same, and minority self defense was and still is necessary against oppression, but gun control debate now is more about national scale and comparison to other countries rather than solely to disenfranchise a certain group. It's now about what to do about the incredible amount of murder and violence around that seems to be unique to our country, and the fact that we're the cowboy gun nuts isn't a coincidence in this scenario.
My opinion: I think ordinary citizens should be able to carry and equip themselves with whatever police are able to, since they are the absolute symbol of oppression and will only get worse when income inequality gets worse. However that's only during a transitional period. If a new society was ever constructed in the US it would ideally be gun free without police or citizens having them and only manufactured for military use (which would only be used in defense).
Anyway once again he ignores historical context like when people say democrats supported slavery not acknowledging that dem/repub definitions have essentially switched or at least changed dramatically over time.
Gun control before the 70s was obviously racist, the black panther self defense stuff being most obvious, but after that point minorities were less and less seen as inferior or separate species and so were 'officially' supposed to be treated the same as whites. The context of the debate changed over time.
That's not to say they were treated the same, and minority self defense was and still is necessary against oppression, but gun control debate now is more about national scale and comparison to other countries rather than solely to disenfranchise a certain group. It's now about what to do about the incredible amount of murder and violence around that seems to be unique to our country, and the fact that we're the cowboy gun nuts isn't a coincidence in this scenario.
My opinion: I think ordinary citizens should be able to carry and equip themselves with whatever police are able to, since they are the absolute symbol of oppression and will only get worse when income inequality gets worse. However that's only during a transitional period. If a new society was ever constructed in the US it would ideally be gun free without police or citizens having them and only manufactured for military use (which would only be used in defense).
methane47
Member
Umm no, your main point is broken and you clearly are of 1 or 2 states
1. You do not have the insight to see that "Gun control" itself is not racist, its just that Gun control in history was more of a gun segregation issue. Its the same as saying "Voting" is racist because at one point in time Black people were not legally able to vote
2. You are pushing your ridiculous gun agenda. Bending truths to fit your ideas
Castor Krieg
Banned
I like the fact you completely ignored his post about US having way more gun-related deaths on average than other countries with gun control laws.
USA! USA!
That shooting would've been prevented if everyone in that youth camp was packin'. Right Manos?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You aren't going to respond with real arguments. But you don't think that a voting system that precluded blacks wasn't racist?
You trust that the police and judicial system will enforce those laws in an equitable and non-racist manner, similar to drug laws, right?
Okay, so it's an issue you were aware of. In what specific way does a history of racism in America pertain to the current gun control debate? Specifically, do you believe that gun control advocates still have racist motives? If so, what do you make of minorities that are for gun control?
As someone that is for the right to bear arms (though not in public/conceal carry), I'm trying to understand what this thread is about. Minorities have plenty of access to guns now, and they also have an insanely high rate of gun related violence compared to whites. Is the point that they had the right to bear arms and that whatever consequences came of that are acceptable, or is it that them having access to guns hasn't increased the rate of gun related violence, or what?
I just don't get it. I don't get most of these threads. The war on guns is about as real as the war on religion.
Said the gun owning, white Catholic. I've got horses in both of these races, and at no point have I ever felt besieged.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
People wouldn't have died drowning and falling off cliffs trying escape.
methane47
Member
Again, You either don't have the insight or you are pressing your agenda.
Voting should not be abolished because at one point in time it was racist.
Voting is still needed in a good society.
Same goes with Gun Control. No one will disagree with the idea that it was at some point in time Racially based. That does not mean that we should get rid of gun control.
They probably would have accidentally shot each other. Like the police that accidentally shot civilians in New York the other day.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You know I wouldn't put it pass some "gun control" advocates to be suffering from subtle racism. Not the open old school, but if they saw a black person walking down a street they would cross the street to avoid them type or worse the need to help the poor minorities who can't help themselves type of racism. This is certain the case of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
However, I think a lot of people are also mistaken that gun control has some actually effect on crime control. The fact that some people want "Assault Weapon" bans despite the fact that ALL rifles (bolt action to semi) represent a very small number of gun deaths as detailed in the FBI Uniform Crime report.
The problem is much like drug laws the laws are often enforced in a racially biased manner (this is discussed in section III of the first article posted), so it's really counter productive as being tough on drug laws.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Where have I suggested removing the Federally Prohibited Persons or background checks?
Ouch.
I thought only the authorities are qualified to have guns?
Clearly we should arm every 15 year old going to a youth camp just in case there's a once in a century sort of attack by a deranged madman. Nothing could go wrong. And even if something goes wrong, the problem solver would be within an arms reach!
That goes for pretty much any law. So let's just do away with all of them. True liberty, at last.
Man, no matter how much you sugarcoat it with fancy studies that sidestep the discussion and other forms of straw man arguments, your basic logic is so fucking retarded most of the time, I wanna scream at the monitor.
Congrats, you've done it again.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
oooh i get it, so if citizens were allow to carry conceal, they'd be able to shoot back at criminals, drive by's , drunk uncles and jealous boyfriends...
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
The average victim age was 20 years old with 13 21 years or older.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Ut.C3.B8ya
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Yes they would, they would have an option besides hoping it all works out. As I asked before who is carrying a gun in those areas currently?
Witchfinder General
punched Wheelchair Mike
Wait, so America has the highest ratio of guns per person in the world (about 9 guns to every 10 people, a large degree more than the next country) yet people think gun control is rampant and insidious?
I don't get it.
I don't get it.
manos, i respect you man. you're well read on your issue. no mistake, this is your issue. probably your only issue.
you are always quick to point out court decisions (be it by the supreme court or whoever) that support your point. you always come back to legality as making you correct. have you ever thought about the fact that the supreme court says some stupid shit sometimes? and maybe that these rulings that you constantly reference do, yes, make something legal.. but not RIGHT at the same time?
methane47
Member
Everyone knows where you are going when it comes to Gun threads.
Even Police shouldn't have guns, They are just "people" too. Many countries in Europe do not have strapped police.
But please tell me then, how do these poor officers then deal with criminals who illegally obtained guns, when the upright citizen can not own them???
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Answer the actual question. Have I said that I wanted to see background checks or the list of federal prohibited persons categories? Have I?
Like France, Germany, and Spain? England is the outlier in the area. It always has been.
In this case both of those cases were legal and "right" at the same time.
So why does Ultra Liberal Vermont have next to non existent gun laws? The last I checked Vermont isn't Chicago in levels of crime.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/vermont.aspx
I'm really would love to know.
Angry Fork
Member
You mean in a new society? Yes I think so, other countries that care about their citizens don't have a problem handling that. The problem with the US and what makes it unique isn't the fact that there are so many guns around but that 1. there are so many unstable psychopaths able to get these guns easily and 2. our vindictive, vengeful culture that supports things like the death penalty, revenge, eye for an eye and so on. When people think like this they will use guns for their selfish reasons without thinking properly. The stereotypes about a large amount of paranoid delusional gun wavering assholes existing here are very very true.
If a new society were to develop it would be by people who are able to recognize guns are solely made to inflict violence on other beings, and they wouldn't want to inflict violence on other beings in the first place. They can be used for fun but that isn't worth keeping them. These people would get rid of them and keep it that way because they know having such weapons around that could do so much damage with little effort is dangerous and irresponsible.
If we could restart the earth fresh with people who are capable of love, understanding, forgiveness, hope, etc. and pick and choose what we should keep and get rid of there is no convincing or justifiable argument for keeping guns. And if that's true then our duty should be to eventually eradicate them. There may be periods that go up when you have to use weapons to defend yourself against tyranny, but once that tyranny is dealt with the weapons should be abandoned.
The 'founding fathers' weren't able to predict how many incredibly stupid, selfish piece of shit loser retard motherfuckers would be roaming around the US in the year 2012. If they did they would have either gotten rid of the 2nd amendment or made very strict provisions in regards to training, psychological testing etc. Normal logical people understand this and therefore implement these conditions now. You call it control, normal people call it common sense.
Stupid people should not be able to have such power in the palm of their hand without recognizing what it really is, what it means to take a life, why it should only be used as a last resort self defense and so on. And it's a deep shame that US states employ so many police officers who are that stupid, vengeful, egotistic and are still able to hold that power. Obviously it's purposeful though as proles aren't supposed to rise above masters. And in only this respect is gun proliferation necessary, but it should be considered a temporary necessity rather than a fact of life the way we see food shelter education etc.
God...frey Jones
Banned
Load of rubbish. Most 'suffer' that because most are right. Guns create crime and in some occasional cases, prevent it.
You're not convincing anybody with this stuff.
Are there many criminals in the US running around with an AK-47s or M16s? Seems like the state actually does a pretty good job at keeping those criminals from getting those guns.
you always come back to legality and constitutionality to defend yourself.
which is totally fair. but also makes you look like a complete square all the time.
person A: that's fucked up, manos
Manos: well it's in the constitution!
that's what most of your arguments are.
It's Manos. Hypotheticals>>>>>Reality.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Yes. This shouldn't even be up for a debate. The very first gun control laws w/ the black codes said specifically "coloreds couldn't own or possess guns". Even after many blacks served in the civil war. There was a distinct fear of former resentful blacks rising up with guns and slaughtering all the innocent pure white people. At least that was their mentality back that.
Is the origin of gun control racist? Absolutely.
Does that translate to gun control today being racist? Debatable. I personally think so. Especially when you look at all the cities with the tightest gun control and look at the racial demographics of those cities.
Is the origin of gun control racist? Absolutely.
Does that translate to gun control today being racist? Debatable. I personally think so. Especially when you look at all the cities with the tightest gun control and look at the racial demographics of those cities.
metalslimer
Member
Perfect
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Which means that background checks and prohibited persons do work, but to say that criminals from non-retail and illegal sources cannot acquire them is incorrect.
I could also give you a technical answer that will annoy you on using the term AK-47 and M16...but that would just because dickish. lol
No, I mean in current society with the NYPD, and not post-scarcity Federation era society.
racist how? i'm not seeing this at all. yes, there are big cities in america. yes, some of them have large non-white populations. yes, some of them have tight gun control. where is the racism?
because in bumfuck montana the white people get all the guns they want? i'm really not seeing this.
Says more about some aspects of American society than about gun control as a principle.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Except I was answering as you asked if it was right vs just legal, I was saying the decision was rightly reached and legal.
It would be just as easy to argue the opposite; That gun control opponents (especially in the south) fear losing their guns because of a racist fear of what minorities might do to them if they weren't armed.
There's no solid proof for either argument.
God...frey Jones
Banned
thanks for the ownage
its okay dude. i know where your heart is at. i respect it. you've just become a joke on gaf.
you're like chitown making only threads related to koreans.
you're like eggman making only threads about random assinine shit.
its what you do. when you get to that point, people dont take you seriously. 99% of gaf sees a manos gun thread and their eyes are rolling. every time.
Mammoth Jones
Member
That's where the word "Debatable" comes into play.......LMAO.
If you're going to debate it, I hope you actually believe it. By saying that it is "debatable", you're saying that a rational argument could actually be made for that notion being true. In this case, I wouldn't say that a rational argument could be made.
This thread is clearly not a history lesson designed to tell people that America used to be institutionally racist (far more so anyway). Clearly the objective was to imply that current gun control advocates are racist.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Gee. All the cities with minorities just to happen to have the absolute tightest gun control. Meanwhile the places where it's nothing but white people have the most lenient gun control laws. Combined with the racist roots of gun control it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation.
Before you reply. Just take 10 minutes and watch: No Guns for Negroes Cause when those black panthers LEGALLY walked on the steps of the California capital with their rifles that state IMMEDIATELY went into gun control mode. And it's been documented too many times that the sole goal was to disarm blacks.
You do the math. Or bury your head in the sand and say "I'm not seeing anything wrong. Nope."
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
The only problem is that those people aren't arguing for any type of gun control rules that are applied to blacks. You could argue that they think that way, but they aren't doing anything to restrict them, as opposed to what was done in the past.
What ownage? LOL
the places where there are only white people? those are getting more and more rare. and where those places exist, there ARENT OTHER PEOPLE. the worst thing thats gonna happen is some hick ass dude accidentally shooting a cow instead of a deer. not a kid, or a mother, or me.
also, have you spent much time in central idaho? northwestern montana? they dont give two fucks about what the government says about guns.
Mammoth Jones
Member
And there's no debate that plenty of white people want to see major cities in the US with black populations disarmed while they get to keep their arms.
Not allowing blacks to own guns and making the areas they live in harder to own a gun is racist. Point blank.
Mammoth Jones
Member
LOL. Don't get it twisted, there are still plenty of places in the US with small minority populations. Go look up some numbers. Obviously with minorities in the US growing that number will go down but let's not pretend there are like 10 places with just white people in the US. Not yet.
You know who else doesn't give a fuck about what government says about guns? Criminals. They're packing regardless of if I follow the law or not.
Meta study shows you are more likely to be shot/killed in the US if you own a gun, then if you don't.
The idea that having a gun on you increases your chance of survival seems logical only on the most shallow level. The study goes as far as to highlight that people who are given an opportunity to defend themselves in a confrontation are substantially more likely to get shot and/or killed if they have a gun.
The idea that having a gun on you increases your chance of survival seems logical only on the most shallow level. The study goes as far as to highlight that people who are given an opportunity to defend themselves in a confrontation are substantially more likely to get shot and/or killed if they have a gun.
Angry Fork
Member
I don't think the NYPD is good for this city, I think it should be completely restructured with much more punishment for people who do bad rather than gang mentality of sticking together. It should be about truth and justice but it is not that at all in my opinion, nowhere near it.
So no I don't think the current gun laws in NYC are a good thing at this moment. I think people should be able to defend themselves against police until a new organization was developed with new rules (if having such police is still justifiable). When that happened I'd want the guns to be gotten rid of from both police and civilians.
If ordinary civilians here had weapons and were legally able to conceal and use them in self defense police would absolutely think twice about doing fucked up shit, so in that regard it's a good thing. Whether or not the majority of people in NYC are mentally up to the task of that responsibility and power is another debate entirely. Basically I feel guns are useful only if class enemies have those weapons and if you're under legitimate threat.
I don't think people who live in the hamptons have anything to fear, and I don't understand why they would need guns. But people in urban areas having guns is no surprise. Instead of allowing them to keep guns we should fix the society that makes it so they need them in the first place. Fix inequality, the justice system, irrational laws etc. and the gun debate becomes trivial. The reason places like Switzerland are able to get away with high gun rates is because their citizens and government don't have the kind of widespread corruption, hate, bigotry etc. that we have.
While that may be partially true, I personally only start with the eye rolling once I read his actual arguments.
- Status