Saturday, October 11, 2014

Does Race Shape Americans’ Passion for Guns?

Fox

What if large groups of African-American men carrying shotguns and semi-automatic rifles started moseying into stores across America to tout their support of open-carry gun laws?
Would they be greeted by the same anxious looks shoppers gave groups of armed white men who did the same this summer at Target stores and chain restaurants like Chipotle? Or something more lethal?
For Charles Gallagher, a sociologist who studies race, the answer to that “what if” is easy.
“Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1,” says Gallagher, a professor at La Salle University in Pennsylvania.

44 comments:

  1. "What if large groups of African-American men carrying shotguns and semi-automatic rifles started moseying into stores across America to tout their support of open-carry gun laws?
    Would they be greeted by the same anxious looks shoppers gave groups of armed white men who did the same this summer at Target stores and chain restaurants like Chipotle? Or something more lethal?"

    A very interesting article Mike. Big test this morning, so I cant tarry long. I'll be back to discuss this further, but, just to begin, this has already happened and the answer is nothing happened. In fact, the leader od the open carry event shared a meal with a law enforcement leader.


    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/08/huey-p-newton-gun-club-stages-open.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SS's favorite group. A gun club named after a murderer and domestic terrorist.

      Delete
    2. I remember my question about a threatening-looking group of black open-carriers coming to your little town.

      Delete
    3. And what makes them threatening looking, Mike? Their being black? Racist.

      Delete
    4. It was a bit more than that, body language, facial expressions, the way they carried the guns. You forget, you guys are the racists, not me.

      Delete
    5. You forget, you guys are the racists . . .

      I suppose it would be . . . rude, or something, of me to inquire if you are planning to present any evidence that Anon (either or both of them) and/or SSG are "the racists"?

      . . . not me.

      So you say. As I recall, Richard Nixon once said that he wasn't a crook. I wonder how honest your denial will look as time passes.

      Delete
    6. The last person to know he is a racist, is a racist.

      Delete
  2. What if large groups of African-American men carrying shotguns and semi-automatic rifles started moseying into stores across America to tout their support of open-carry gun laws?

    More power to them, I say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what you call a safe society? Groups of people roaming the streets with deadly weapons. A gun loons oasis.

      Delete
    2. A gun loons [sic] oasis.

      I prefer to think of it as an abject, sniveling coward's nightmare, but as you will.

      Delete
    3. Since you have already proven to think like a criminal, no doubt you think it's a good idea.

      Delete
    4. What does criminality have to do with the subject at hand?

      Delete
    5. That's what criminals do roam the streets with guns.

      Delete
    6. That's what criminals do roam the streets with guns.

      Some do, yes. Most also "roam the streets with" pants, too. And guess what, genius: in both cases, so do non-criminals.

      Delete
    7. In your case you have already proven your criminal thinking, so you are not a non-criminal.

      Delete
    8. In your case you have already proven your criminal thinking, so you are not a non-criminal.

      My "criminal thinking," Anon? Are you charging me with Thoughtcrime now? How very Big Brotherish of you.

      Delete
    9. Not at all, you have posted your thinking (stance on issues) and it is illegal. Just because you are unaware it is illegal only proves what an idiot you are.

      Delete
    10. Not at all, you have posted your thinking (stance on issues) and it is illegal.

      There is no such thing as "illegal thinking."

      I can break laws by committing certain actions. I can even break laws by merely saying certain things. I cannot break any law by what I think--literally every possible thought is legal (and if any thoughts were "illegal," how would the prosecution prove that the accused had actually harbored the "forbidden thoughts"?).

      That's actually good news for you, too, because otherwise, you'd be gas chamber-bound for Capital Stupidity.

      Delete
    11. "Not at all, you have posted your thinking (stance on issues) and it is illegal."

      I suppose that depends on what country you live in Anon. Last I heard, citizens are still allowed to think whatever they please in this one. Its also quite legal to voice those thoughts, in this country, so far.
      Can we say Freudian slip?

      Delete
    12. Only if you are going to be dishonest again SS, and of course you are.
      This is the same guy who said he would overthrow the government at gun point if the government reinstated the assault rifle ban. That would be a criminal act. Talking opinions is one thing saying you are going to commit a crime is another.

      Delete
    13. This is the same guy who said he would overthrow the government at gun point if the government reinstated the assault rifle ban.

      I said no such thing. I said violent overthrow of the government would be morally justified in response to such tyranny (but I was referring to a ban of so-called "assault weapons," not "assault rifles"). I didn't say I would do it (and it would be a pretty neat trick if I managed it--one man in a wheelchair pulling off a coup d'état by himself).

      Besides, what specific law would I have broken if I had said I was going to "overthrow the government at gun point," especially in a hypothetical future stipulating a condition that does not currently exist (a federal AWB)?

      You are simply not very good at this at all, Anon.

      Delete
    14. "Talking opinions is one thing saying you are going to commit a crime is another."

      Anon, as the old saying goes, talk is cheap. And its also protected by the Constitution. And as has been noted before especially unpopular speech. So unless you can make some justification that Kurt is somehow guilty of say, conspiracy to overthrow the government, in which case you should call the FBI.
      Before you do, I suggest you look up the term first. If you do call to report Kurt, please record the call and let Mike post it here. I have no doubt it would be entertaining.

      Delete
    15. Yep--what SSG said, Anon. This wouldn't be the first time an attempt was made to get me charged with that. It was enormously entertaining for me that time, too.

      Delete
    16. Nice word twisting criminal.

      Delete
    17. Nice word twisting criminal.

      Well, Anon, the ball is in your court (the closest to "balls" you're likely to get). If you think I've committed a crime, takes SSG's suggestion, and report me to the authorities--it's not as if what you claim to be "evidence" of my "crime" will be hard to find.

      Come on, Anon--do it. I would have so much fun with that.

      Delete
    18. "Anon, as the old saying goes, talk is cheap. And its also protected by the Constitution. And as has been noted before especially unpopular speech. So unless you can make some justification that Kurt is somehow guilty of say, conspiracy to overthrow the government, in which case you should call the FBI."

      So, maybe Kurt should be generous enough to apply that thinking to Bill Maher.

      Delete
    19. So, maybe Kurt should be generous enough to apply that thinking to Bill Maher.

      If I had, like Maher, come out and publicly stated that I had done the illegal deed in question, you would perhaps have a useful parallel here. Unfortunately for your "argument," I haven't, so you don't.

      Delete
    20. Protect the criminal all you want guys. He has said HE would commit a criminal act, that's more than criminal thinking.

      Delete
    21. So have you reported me yet, Anon? Come on, do it. Don't be such a cowardly little punk. DO IT. Give me weeks of laughter.

      Delete
    22. Yes I have and sent along the criminal comment you made.

      Delete
    23. Wonderful! Do tell about any reply you receive. Should I report every year that goes by without anyone arresting me? Hahahahahaha!

      I just love "criminal comment"--that's some funny shit. Have you considered comedy as a profession, Anon?

      Delete
    24. If you were anything but a total gun loon spouting criminal thinker, there could be a serious discussion, but as you are, you are just this sites joke. And thanks for the laughs.

      Delete
  3. I should add that I would hope that these good men be very careful. When one combines "gun control" fanatics' penchant for "SWATting" open carry activists, with the long sordid historical connection between racism and "gun control," such an event could be quite dangerous.

    Advance coordination with the police would probably be a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "When some gun control advocates look at the nation’s passion for guns, they see the same racial fears that drove previous generations to enact black codes. These fears, they say, are passed down, like genes, from one generation to another."

    I'm not quite understanding how enabling people of all races to be able to possess firearms for self defense is a reaction caused by a fear of minorities. We have even discussed here areas in which the majority of carry permit holders are African American.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't remember that business about "the majority of carry permit holders are African American."

      Delete
    2. "African-Americans are actually overrepresented among concealed pistol license holders compared to whites in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. They’re also most likely to use stand your ground and Castle Doctrine laws: 99 of 126 civilians who killed in self-defense in Michigan from 2000 to 2010 were African-American."

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-gun-debate-misses-mark-in-detroit.html

      Unfortunately, the link you used for the article is no longer working. Its not surprising you don't remember it since you didn't actually comment other than posting the article. I imagine things can sort of blur together after a while when dealing with the sheer volume of so many posts.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for that understanding response. I would imagine "Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties" are predominantly black, and that's what explains the counter-intuitive statistic. What do you think?

      Delete
    4. I would imagine "Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties" are predominantly black, and that's what explains the counter-intuitive statistic.

      Wayne County is (as of the 2010 census) 52.3% white, Oakland County 77.3% white, and Macomb County 85.4% white.

      Time to find a new spin, Mikeb?

      Delete
    5. Actually, the African-American percentages are probably more useful for purposes of this discussion than the white percentages I posted.

      Wayne County: 40.5% African American
      Oakland County: 13.6% African American
      Macomb County: 8.6% African American

      Delete
    6. It's no spin. I was a simple attempt to understand the bizarre fact that ss hit us with. Since you did that homework for me, I suppose I have to reject outright the notion that in those counties more blacks have permits than whites. Unless, maybe you can explain it to me.

      Delete
    7. Actually, Mikeb, I suspect there's an explanation that won't present any problems for your world view. When we're told that, "African-Americans are actually overrepresented among concealed pistol license holders compared to whites . . . " I don't think it necessarily means that the raw numbers are greater. I think it more likely that in terms of percentage of that ethnic group, they're represented at a greater rate.

      So, for example, when we're told that 8.6% of Macombe County's population is African-American, then if, say, 10% of concealed carry licensees were black, while 75% of licensees were white (who rep[resent 85.4% of the population), then African-Americans could be said to be "overrepresented" among licensees, despite being outnumbered by white licensees 7.5 to 1.

      I don't know that that's what's going on here, but I suspect it's something like that. You're welcome.

      What I think would be interesting would be to see if African-Americans are under-represented as compared to whites, to a greater extent in "may issue" states, than in "shall issue" states. In other words, I would like to see if "may issue" poses more of an obstacle to African-American applicants than to white ones, thus causing a larger disparity. I would think that there's a fair chance the answer would be yes. And I think that answer would be instructive.

      Delete
    8. That makes sense.

      The instructive answer you mentioned would be proof of, what, not racism? You keep denying it even exists.

      Delete
    9. The instructive answer you mentioned would be proof of, what, not racism?

      Not "proof," no--I have pretty high standards of what constitutes proof--perhaps you've noticed? I think it would be a compelling
      indicator of the distinct possibility of racism, though.

      You keep denying it even exists.

      Then surely you can find one example of such a denial on my part. Good luck with that. I'm strongly convinced that not a single such example exists. I do tend to question your automatic assumption of "racism," when your "evidence" seems to be limited to the fact that an incident in question took place in the south (you can probably guess "favorite" example), but that's a very long way from "denying it even exists."

      Delete
    10. You know, it's funny--I could have sworn that it's you who incessantly accuses me of "lying," and "twisting what my opponents say."

      Wouldn't that be ironic?

      Delete