Just in case anybody doesn't think racism is screwing up the debate about guns
What I "learned" this week from Detroit News Politics Blog readers:
Apparently, our society's glorification of guns and violence, along with the impact that has on young kids, is not a problem. Nope, it's not a problem at all. The real problem in their view -- and if you read through the comments, this is pretty clearly the consensus -- is black people. MLK, we have not reached the mountaintop just yet.
Read this and then read the comments section: http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2013/08/23/americas-gun-culture/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Robb
(39,665 posts)The excessive use of code words like "thug" to dehumanize black victims is prevalent. And through a spectacular bit of projection, gun enthusiasts equate their "struggle" with that black people face against pervasive racism. And do it in all sincerity, even here on DU, without consequence.
Because being limited to 10 bullets instead of 30 is just like centuries of discrimination, enslavement and murder. Just like it.
spin
(17,493 posts)the word is justified to use to describe any person who engages in beating up or killing innocent people for no reason. The race of the "thug" is irrelevant.
While some gun enthusiasts may be racist the majority are not. I remember the time I took a black co-worker to the range to introduce him to target shooting. When we had left I asked him what he thought of the experience.
I was surprised when he replied, "I expected to find myself discriminated against, but instead everybody was polite and helpful."
He later went on to acquire a small collection of handguns and eventually obtained a concealed weapons permit. He also became my boss. He fondly remembered our times at the range and in fact mentioned them at a meeting which involved higher level supervision as one of the more interesting and educational moments that had influenced his life and career.
It's all too easy to form misconceptions about those who differ from you especially when you base your assumptions on a few that you have met or what you read in the media. The result is stereotyping a large group of people unfairly which often makes you feel superior or more intelligent. The solution is to be more open minded and fair toward all people. You'll learn a lot more and be a far better person if you adopt this approach.
The gun control debate is an example of an issue where both sides have developed a hatred of each other. Both sides are far too willing to throw insults rather than to listen to the good points that each side has to support its views. Both the conservative and the liberal media promote this divide to increase sales of their publications and increase profit. The NRA and the gun control groups both pour gasoline on the flames to promote membership and donations. The two political parties take sides not on principle but to gain votes for reelection.
Is it any wonder that we are unable to improve the gun laws in our nation?
Robb
(39,665 posts)The bit about how gun control groups are ginning up the divide to increase membership, first of all. The level to which you stoop to demean and dehumanize the real people who run these organizations, whose roles were primarily launched because they have lost loved ones to gun violence, took me a bit by surprise.
But truly, the last thing I expected on DU was to hear yet another white person lauding the end of racism. And letting us all know, this wonderful post-racial society bloomed first among gun enthusiasts, no less. Who knew!
The most generous conclusion is that you have lost the use of your eyes and ears.
Skittles
(159,374 posts)we are told we should not be upset by the results
spin
(17,493 posts)I was disappointed when the opportunity to make some much needed changes failed after the tragic shooting in Newtown.
Prior to the recent rash of mass shootings I strongly supported universal background checks and major improvements to our NICS background check system including imputing the names of those legally adjudged as having severe mental issues to the database. I also favor the idea of increasing law enforcement efforts and penalties to stop the straw purchase and smuggling of firearms to the inner cities of our nation and to Mexico.
I would also like to see anyone who buys a firearm or ammunition required to have a card proving that they have received firearm safety training. This would be similar to the card required for a Scuba diver to buy air for his tanks.
I believe that some of my ideas would have been possible to pass at the national level especially after the events our nation has recently suffered. For example polls show a majority of gun owners support universal background checks. Unfortunately the gun control advocates overreached by pushing for another assault weapons ban and the results were predictable in our Congress when you consider that the House is under Republican control and that a small state that supports gun rights has the same number of Senators as a state with a much larger population that favors strong gun control.
So an excellent opportunity was lost and now, because of the upcoming midterm elections, is unlikely unless we have a number of mass murders. The threat of strong gun legislation such as another assault weapons ban caused gun owners and many people who had never owned a firearm to run down to their local gun store and to form long lines waiting to get into gun show. Now millions of new firearms are in the hands of civilians, many who lack the safety training to handle these deadly weapons responsibly. Ammunition flew off the shelves of gun stores and out the doors of gun shows and now many Americans have thousands and thousands of rounds in their homes.
In the post you replied to I was critical of both sides of the debate and the media and also our elected representatives. Read what I said again carefully.
The gun control debate is an example of an issue where both sides have developed a hatred of each other. Both sides are far too willing to throw insults rather than to listen to the good points that each side has to support its views. Both the conservative and the liberal media promote this divide to increase sales of their publications and increase profit. The NRA and the gun control groups both pour gasoline on the flames to promote membership and donations. The two political parties take sides not on principle but to gain votes for reelection.
Did you note that I said that both sides of the debate have good points to make?
I understand the feelings of those who have lost family members as I recently lost a close family member to a tragic accident involving a firearm. I also realize that I might not be making this post had not my mother had a revolver in her purse when she was attacked in the 1920 time frame by a white thug who intended to rape her as she was walking home from work. She fired two shots over his head and he ran.
I fail to see how you read my post and than made this comment:
But truly, the last thing I expected on DU was to hear yet another white person lauding the end of racism. And letting us all know, this wonderful post-racial society bloomed first among gun enthusiasts, no less. Who knew!
If you read carefully you would have realized that I said:
While some gun enthusiasts may be racist the majority are not.
Nowhere did I state that racism has ended. Far from it and it not only exists among some gun enthusiasts but also to a degree in the ranks of gun control advocates and all citizens in our nation.
However if you grew up in the 1950s and 1960s as I did you would realize we have made great headway in reducing racism in our nation. Many white people voted for Obama just as I and the members of my family did.
You find the use of the word "thug" to be offensive as you suggest that it is a code word for black youth. I said that such use was inappropriate but the word could be legitimately used to describe any individual who preys on innocent people for no reason and enjoys beating or killing them. I am now 67 years old and I realize that language changes over time but I will continue to use the term thug to describe those who pray on others for fun. I would describe the members of the KKK who used to beat and kill minorities back in the times when I was growing up as thugs or even worse.
But while you are disturbed by this "code word" you seem to have no real problem with insinuating gun enthusiasts are racist.
Perhaps I find that insulting because I am definitely a gun enthusiast but my family has a number of friends in the black community. Several years ago we took in a black teenager who had been kicked out of his home by his mother. We helped him get his birth certificate and paid for it. We also helped him to get his ID and a job and I drove him to and from his work for several months. He stayed with us for well over a year and now lives in a rented house with my grandson and my grandson's girlfriend who is also black.
The main point I wish to make is if we ever wish to make headway on reducing gun violence in our nation we need to show some respect for the other side of the debate and carefully consider what they say. Uselessly calling each other names will only drive us apart and make any compromise impossible.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Adorable.
spin
(17,493 posts)If you wish to continue to hold that view, feel free to do so. Obviously nothing I can say will change your view.
Feel free to continue to insult gun rights advocates but don't be surprised if your goals of implementing reforms to our gun control laws are extremely difficult to achieve.
To be honest I see little chance that my efforts to stop both sides of the gun control debate from insulting each other and to find compromise will ever work. Both sides of the debate are firmly cemented in their positions. They will never show any respect for each other and our nation will continue to make absolutely no progress on the issue.
This saddens me.
Robb
(39,665 posts)It's uncomplicated.
Further, this is not a forum for "gun rights" activists, no matter how polite they pretend to be about it. The "debate" is held elsewhere, this is a forum to discuss means. Also uncomplicated.
shedevil69taz
(512 posts)To actually be implemented you are going to have to get firearm owners on your side for specific ideas. How exactly do you think you are going to accomplish that without debating the opposing point of view?
billh58
(6,641 posts)with the same old tired talking point of "we represent ALL American gun owners." Nope, not even close, as most
Democratic American gun owners are reasonable, AND responsible citizens. The right-wing gun owners will never agree with ANY gun control measures, and there is absolutely no need to even attempt to "get them on our side."
Reasonable gun owners are already "on our side," and the die hard Gungeoneers and the fear-mongering NRA (4 million members) who presume to speak for them are a very small, but very vocal, minority.
There is no need for a debate on why stricter gun control measures are needed -- only on how best to implement them. Minimizing the political influence of the NRA and its corrupting influence on our politicians at all levels of government would be a logical starting point. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark, along with MAIG, the Brady Campaign, and VPC are the forefront of this movement and are beginning to frame the national conversation about the overabundance of guns in this country.
Now go back and tell your Gungeoneer buddies that your concern was duly noted, and that you did your best to convince us of the errors of our ways.
billh58
(6,641 posts)on not only the "race" issue, but on all things having to do with the regulation of their precious fucking guns. Their recent attempts at "playing nice" are nothing more than an in-your-face sham while still spouting their right-wing talking points.
Skittles
(159,374 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Your DU name is most appropriate.
spin
(17,493 posts)I think we both can agree that a conservative media exists.
I am old enough to remember the days when every major city had at least two newspapers. It was common for one to lean left and the other lean right. During those days I would try to read the editorial opinions from both newspapers and then form my own opinion.
Today those days are long gone as the 24/7 cable news channels and the internet have largely replaced dead tree publications. Fox News is definitely biased conservative and is far from being fair and balanced as it suggests. MSNBC leans left and CNN is somewhere in the middle and boring.
I am retired and can watch all three and I then do my own research on the net to form my opinions.
Media bias in the United States
Media bias in the United States occurs when the media in the United States systematically presents a particular point of view. Claims of media bias in the United States include claims of liberal bias, conservative bias, mainstream bias, and corporate bias. There are claims of bias in both news and entertainment media. There are a variety of watchdog groups that attempt to find the facts behind both biased reporting and unfounded claims of bias,[1][2] and research about media bias is a subject of systematic scholarship in a variety of disciplines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
I suggest you take the time to read this lengthy article which seems to me to be fairly balanced.
In the discussion above which largely involved the issue of gun control, I stated:
The gun control debate is an example of an issue where both sides have developed a hatred of each other. Both sides are far too willing to throw insults rather than to listen to the good points that each side has to support its views. Both the conservative and the liberal media promote this divide to increase sales of their publications and increase profit. The NRA and the gun control groups both pour gasoline on the flames to promote membership and donations. The two political parties take sides not on principle but to gain votes for reelection.
The conservative media often suggests that an AR-15 is an excellent weapon for home defense and that women find it easy to use. The fact is that any moderately powered rifle is a poor choice for home defense in an urban area as it can easily penetrate the walls in your home and not only endangers others in your house but your near neighbors. It may be a good weapon in a rural area if you are attacked by a large number of predators at a long range but this is extremely unlikely. In my opinion a handgun or a shotgun is a better choice if loaded with appropriate ammunition.
The liberal media claims that there is absolutely no use for an AR-15 or similar assault weapon as they are designed only for military use and are absolutely useless except for killing people. The fact is the AR-15 in .223 (the most common caliber) is used in many states for hunting game such as feral hog and even deer and is becoming very popular with hunters. This firearm can be easily modified to fire more powerful rounds that are quite capable of hunting large game. The liberal media also says that there is no reason to hunt game with a 20 or 30 round magazine and most states agree. While in some states you can hunt feral hog with a high capacity magazine as they are considered pests that do considerable damage to the environment, hunting game such as deer is usually limited to semi-auto rifles with only a five round magazine buy state regulations in those states that allow it. AR-15s are also extremely popular with competitive target shooters and used in national completions.
In order to learn enough to form a good opinion on any issue it is necessary to consider both sides of the debate. Admittedly this takes time and is challenging.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)There is no "liberal media" in the US. There's the right, and the far right. That doesn't make the right "liberal".
spin
(17,493 posts)I should point out that I don't believe that being extremely liberal is a bad trait in the least. People simply differ for many reasons.
I may not lean as far left as you but while I may disagree I will still respect your opinions.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Social Security
Medicare
Progressive taxation
Living wage
Public education
You get the idea.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x438432
Because if you don't, then you probably don't need to say any more. And if you do, please don't pretend that this kind of talk and attitude isn't common in the gungeon. This post wasn't by some one-time troll, it's by a prominent gungeon member who still posts today. And there are plenty of others like it. If even the "progressive" gun enthusiasts exhibit this kind of racially charged language, how can you possibly deny that the gun culture at large, which is decidedly not progressive, is infested with racism?
spin
(17,493 posts)issue.
To me the post you mentioned is offensive and counterproductive.
On the gun control issue my object is to present my opinion as a gun rights advocate while being polite. I have no desire to fan the flames but to try to convince others to show at least a minimum of respect for the other side and consequently to help find a way to pass effective legislation that will help curb gun violence in our nation.
Above I expressed my views that the use of the word "thug" is appropriate when used to describe a person of any race who enjoys beating up or killing other innocent people for no good reason. During my life I have seen a number of people who grew up disadvantaged who were able to avoid attacking others. Often one of the problems they faced was mastering our version of the English language as it makes finding well paying jobs more difficult but I would never use an example of their dialect in an attempt to portray them as unintelligent.
I find that both sides of the gun control debate have a nasty tendency to enjoy throwing gasoline on the flames of the debate. If there ever is any hope of making some progress in passing truly effective legislation to curb gun violence in our nation, we all need to stop fanning the flames.
Of course this applies to many other serious issues. I am now 67 years old and now I fear our nation is becoming even more divided than it was at anytime during my life. If so we may have peaked and now are headed downhill.
I've had a number of discussions with you, and I will agree that you have done a good job of presenting your opinions as a gun rights advocate while being polite.
I also agree that the issue does have a tendency to lead to flame wars and insults.
To me, the most fundamental question is whether or not the high homicide rate in the US compared with other similar nations has to do with the wide availability of guns. You probably disagree, but based on my reading of the evidence, the answer is a clear yes.
That strikes me as the fundamental disconnect. If you believe that, then there are 30,000 lives per year being lost needlessly, and it becomes hard to justify letting all those people die because some people want access to the most modern high-powered, easily concealable weaponry without so much as a registration or even a background check.
On the other hand, if you don't believe that gun availability and homicide rates are linked -- for example, if you think that there would be just as many homicides (and suicides), and that without guns people would just substitute other means, then gun control becomes to be a pointless government intrusion on the freedom of law-abiding people to defend themselves and to enjoy an activity with deep cultural roots.
What I think happens is that, rather than discussing the key question, which is how much of role in violence, homicide, and suicide does gun availability play, most people who engage in gun control debates have already made up their mind about that.
Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)
I believe suicide and homicide rates would drop dramatically with stricter gun control laws.
Particularly suicide rates, which from what I've read, make up the vast majority of gun deaths.
Thank you for bringing this up. I think suicide prevention is the strongest argument in favor of gun control.
Since this group's SOP is to "discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform" and "mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence," forwarding the suicide prevention argument is not only appropriate but, I believe, the single most promising strategy for (a) accomplishing the larger goal of enacting sane gun control legislation and (b) reducing the number of gun-related injuries and fatalities in America.
billh58
(6,641 posts)twist on the NRA mantra of "without a gun, they would just find another way to commit suicide." In other words, ready access to a gun is not the problem, it is just a mental health issue.
You also seem somewhat obsessed with this Group's SOP, as if very carefully attempting to walk a fine line on the edges of compliance. As has been noted elsewhere, you are not fooling anyone and good luck in the game you are so obviously enjoying. You are not the first, and most certainly will not be the last to attempt to disrupt this Group.
Sanddog42
(117 posts)Without a gun they would be much less likely commit suicide.
Ready access to a gun most certainly is a problem, especially for a person with mental health issues.
ellisonz
(27,739 posts)"The two political parties take sides not on principle but to gain votes for reelection."
