[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6633

File: 1599124401959.jpg (22.57 KB, 385x680, 77:136, Deon_Kay,_late_2nd_Amendme….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Black open carry activist Deon Kay was shot and killed in the Washington D.C. area Wednesday, September 2nd by police. While details are still sketchy and initial reports may be wrong, it's thought that officers stated that they feared for their safety after Kay had 'brandished' his firearm. They fired despite Kay, reports state, having his back facing them while fleeing the scene.

Besides being yet another story as a part of the broader 'Black Lives Matter' phenomenon, this gets to a major, core point in American politics. It's an issue with strong passions. Many questions but few answers.

>Why are only certain classes of people, in effect, allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

In the U.S. today, particular individuals, especially African-Americans, feel that they must be armed to defend themselves. And common sense seems to indicate that they should be able to do so. Yet broader U.S. society looks down upon people who carry weapons if they don't 'look the type'. This goes beyond skin color and tends to also include LGBT individuals, Jews, Muslims, and many others thought to not be welcome in terms of 'gun culture'. The National Rifle Association in particular has a membership known for hostility toward perceived dangerous interlopers. Why is this? And how can these double-standards and inconsistencies be solved?

Is there just a natural, innate viewer reaction to seeing the image here:

>

That wouldn't happen if it was a white open carry activist? If so, how do these perceptions get fixed? Or maybe they're not fixable?

 No.6634

>>6633
Washington DC doesn't allow open carry, as far as I am aware, does it?
From what I understand, it's pretty strict about guns, in general.

This said, for open carry, you usually have it in a holster, not in your hand. At least with pistols. Rifles are a bit different, but those are still going to be on a sling across your chest, not in the hand.

Also, going by this footage, he doesn't appear to have been shot in the back.

 No.6635

File: 1599160638586.jpg (58.87 KB, 920x623, 920:623, open-carry.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6633
>Yet broader U.S. society looks down upon people who carry weapons if they don't 'look the type'. This goes beyond skin color and tends to also include LGBT individuals, Jews, Muslims, and many others thought to not be welcome in terms of 'gun culture'.
I would say that's more in relation to anti-gun people, than anything else.
I've certainly never met anyone who seems to care in the gun community.
There's been plenty of outspoken gay guys I've met who got in to guns without issue, due to some fears in relation to their homosexuality. Nobody seemed to mind.
And I've definitely never seen anyone say a bad thing about Jews, the people with some straight historic reasons to worry about regime changes putting them at risk, getting armed.

>The National Rifle Association in particular has a membership known for hostility toward perceived dangerous interlopers.
While I'd be the first person to condemn the NRA as a junk organization full of garbage who doesn't actually give a damn about people's gun rights, and is more than happy to sell them out for the manufacturers, I'd need to see some evidence for this complaint.
Again, I've just never come across it.

>Is there just a natural, innate viewer reaction to seeing the image here: That wouldn't happen if it was a white open carry activist?
Most open-carry activists I know don't tend to have it in the hand, in a state that has extreme regulations on firearms, in their car posing for a camera. Black or white, or anything else for that matter.
It's usually in a holster. Or, if it's out, pointed down range or to the ground.

Of course the greatest crime of all here is recording vertically.

 No.6636

>>6633
>Kay had 'brandished' his firearm.
The legal definition of brandishing varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in general, holding a loaded handgun unholstered in public is a very bad idea unless you'd be justified in shooting it.  

>>6634
>This said, for open carry, you usually have it in a holster, not in your hand.
^This

And I'll go further and say that carrying a chambered handgun unholstered is dangerous and negligent.  And even for unchambered handguns, carrying without a holster (e.g., Mexican carry or pocket carry) is highly frowned upon.  (Remember, always treat guns as if they are loaded.)

>>6633
>Black open carry activist Deon Kay
Do you have a source for him being an activist for open carry?

>>6634
>Washington DC doesn't allow open carry, as far as I am aware, does it?
If it doesn't, that's an infringement, if you ask me.

 No.6637

>>6633
Theres nothing more threatening to a white cop than a black back.

Put bullets in it, Fast.

 No.6642

>>6633
>Yet broader U.S. society looks down upon people who carry weapons if they don't 'look the type'.

I contest that statement.  The current protests suggest that "broader US society" doesn't hold such views, only a few slaveholder class racists hold those views and the rest of us are simply told that those views arent abnormal.

Believing that such narratives are "commonly held" is how such outrageous bullshit continues to exist as though it were true.

 No.6665

>In the U.S. today, particular individuals, especially African-Americans, feel that they must be armed to defend themselves

Yeah no the vast majority of minorities realize it's a fucking death sentence to have anything more threatening than a pencil on us. Some idiots just fall for the narrative that it is possible to defend yourself. The moment the gentiles decide to notice you it's all over and there isn't anything you can do about it. Even if you kill the guy after you they're gonna come in a mob and drag you behind their truck, by the neck if you're lucky.

 No.6667

>>6665
>Yeah no the vast majority of minorities realize it's a fucking death sentence to have anything more threatening than a pencil on us.
I disagree.  Blacks get concealed-carry permits at a rate only moderately below that of whites.  E.g., in Texas in 2018, blacks were 11.8% of the population and 8.2% of concealed-carry permit-holders.  And the racial gap has been closing in recent years.

Source: John Lott, "Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2019" (September 27, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3463357 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463357

>Even if you kill the guy after you they're gonna come in a mob and drag you behind their truck, by the neck if you're lucky.
Can you cite even a single example from this century where this happened to someone acting in lawful self-defense?

 No.6687

Carrying a firearm poses a bigger threat to black people because of that stigma and fear from other people. A good example of this is Philando Castile.

Not only that, "gun culture" itself seems to be quite racist in America. The type of people attracted to owning firearms are racist white folks who are being fed fear. Where are black people to learn proper safety measures and purchase items when so many gun supporting spaces are so openly or subtly hostile to them?

 No.6688

File: 1599633165651.jpeg (40.11 KB, 680x680, 1:1, Ea0l2lvWkAAqVJi.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>6687
Police in general are paranoid around any lawful gunowners who have those guns on them. They shoot plenty of white legal gun owners as well, after all. They just don't tend to show up in the media, as they're more difficult to sensationalize.

>Not only that, "gun culture" itself seems to be quite racist in America.
I have yet to ever come across any evidence for this claim. I see it repeated often, yet my experience seems to be the direct opposite, and nobody has been able to provide anything to demonstrate it's true.
I suspect it is solely a presumption, based off a stereotype of the rural country gun owner, that just doesn't seem representative of reality.

>The type of people attracted to owning firearms are racist white folks who are being fed fear.
Definitely not.
Firearms are something anyone of any particular identity group or otherwise can benefit from.
It's not simply for white people, racists, or the paranoid.
Anyone, of any walk of life, can benefit from the independence a firearm offers.

>Where are black people to learn proper safety measures and purchase items when so many gun supporting spaces are so openly or subtly hostile to them?
Is that actually the case, or is that simply assumed to be the case?
Again, this seems to run directly contrary to my experience. Gun owners in my experience are one of the most open up groups, provided you're respectful enough to leave them alone in so far as what they have or do. Though even there, the existence of fudds rather demonstrates there's room for even those busibodies.

I think if you actually tried your local range or gun safety course, you would find there very accepting of anyone, from any walk of life, who wishes to either get in to the hobby, or gain the means to defend themselves.

 No.6691

>>6688
>They shoot plenty of white legal gun owners as well, after all.

Show me some statistical evidence of this please. The police let Kyle Rittenhouse go after shooting innocent people BECAUSE he was white.

>Firearms are something anyone of any particular identity group or otherwise can benefit from.

Black people could benefit from fire-arms for self defense. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying there are reasons why it's not as practiced with them. The simple fact that someone COULD benefit from them does not mean they are the ones attracted to gun ownership in the current climate. There are obstacles to it no matter how much benefit they would provide.

> I have yet to ever come across any evidence for this claim.

>Again, this seems to run directly contrary to my experience.

Are you black? Are you non-white? If you are not, then how would you see such evidence? We are describing the experiences of groups that you may not be a part of and would not experience yourself. It's more useful to listen to those claims than dismiss them based on the fact that you don't experience what a black person does. Of course you do not, unless you yourself are black.

 No.6692

>>6691
>Show me some statistical evidence of this please.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

>The police let Kyle Rittenhouse go after shooting innocent people BECAUSE he was white.
No, they let him go because they had no idea what was going on.
A stupid move on their part, they ought to have paid more attention. But, it's not all that shocking, as these are the same people who're letting rioters go unimpeded for days now, while they destroy people's livelihoods.

>Black people could benefit from fire-arms for self defense. I'm not arguing against that.
Then you ought to see why black people, along side any minority, any religious group, any sexuality, any gender identity, would likewise find attraction towards firearms.
It's not just "racist white folk" as you seem to think.

>The simple fact that someone COULD benefit from them does not mean they are the ones attracted to gun ownership in the current climate.
Likewise, your assumption of what people "COULD" be attracted to gun ownership doesn't mean it's actually representative of reality.
I've not seen any evidence for this idea. There's plenty of people of many different backgrounds attracted to the concept of firearm ownership. It's not solely racist white people, as you seem to think. That doesn't seem to be anything beyond your own prejudice speaking.

>Are you black? Are you non-white? If you are not, then how would you see such evidence?
With proof.
You can post something demonstrating your claim to be the case.
A study, for example. Statistical evidence.

>It's more useful to listen to those claims than dismiss them based on the fact that you don't experience what a black person does. Of course you do not, unless you yourself are black.
So I should just listen and believe?
Is that a privilege only extended to black people, or should I 'listen and believe' the white nationalists as well?

Evidence is important. It distinguishes between worthless claims of personal bias and assumption, and actual, tangible, real world reality.
I do not care what you assume black people experience. You are not "black people". You are a person. There are a lot of people in the world. Your claimed experiences are irrelevant, as that is ultimately anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence can be dismissed with anecdotal evidence.

You do not have to be black to see racism. If I'm at the gun range, and someone says "Get the fuck out of here you nigger" to a black gun owner trying to learn to shoot, I'm pretty sure I would be able to tell that racism is occurring.
I have never seen any hostility in the gun community in regards to race or any other identity. It does not appear to exist.
I'm inclined to believe you assume that there would be racism, because of your own personal prejudices.

 No.6721

Seems that we're intermingling prejudice in broader society, which would logically infect 'gun culture' generally, with specific, normal gun owners and then the National Rifle Association as an institution.

I'm guilty of doing this myself. But the three are not the same. It's probably clear from recent events that NRA =/= majority attitudes and actions of gun owners most of all.

For me personally, I'm not a gun owner, but my dad's cousin is and he's invited my dad and I to go shooting once all of this COVID nonsense is over. Living in the U.S. south, I generally don't feel unsafe around normal people carrying. I am, however, concerned about online all of the self-described politically radical gun owners itching for some kind of a civil war/"boogaloo" and who openly traffic in homophobic, racist, et cetera conflict. I've personally gotten hate comments from them as such, and I know that I'm far from alone. I'd hate to ever meet those fringe types in real life. I'd also hate to ever have anything to do with an organization as terrible as the NRA personally and their acolytes, who play footsie with those radicals or outright are them.

For what it's worth, the NRA even sued itself for its content for gun owners being "distasteful and racist", including cartoons with characters dressed in Klan outfits.

Story: https://www.businessinsider.com/nra-leaders-found-nratv-to-be-distasteful-and-racist-2019-10

 No.6724

File: 1599865938503.png (1.06 MB, 1518x1768, 759:884, k-45265385.png) ImgOps Google

>>6721
>I am, however, concerned about online all of the self-described politically radical gun owners itching for some kind of a civil war/"boogaloo" and who openly traffic in homophobic, racist, et cetera conflict.
I suspect this is a small percentage of gun owners.  I'd say most of this type of content is from memers, LARPers, and people being edgy for the sake of being edgy.  I highly doubt there are many people actually making tannerite stuffed dogs, etc.  And although you do find some anti-gay posts on /k/, you also find things like pic related.

>I'd also hate to ever have anything to do with an organization as terrible as the NRA personally
Eh, I've been a life member of the NRA for 7 or 8 years now.  I know there's a lot of problems with the NRA, but they seem to be the most practically effective group at influencing legislation in a pro-2A direction.  (Yeah, they sometimes cave in, like with bump stocks, but sometimes it might be better to retreat if there's no hope of victory.)

 No.6725

>>6724
The point though is that the rot in terms of bigoted gun owners is coming from the NRA out, like a spot of mold on a block of foodstuff, so as long as the organization gets support then its going to taint all gun owners in general by association.

In the very real and personal sense, I'm going to have to be at least a little bit afraid participating at shooting events as somebody who's openly LGBT and disabled if I do actually do so because of how the NRA's "distasteful and racist" social views has infected that group of gun owners as you say.

Now just imagine an alternate world where some Hypothetical Rifle Association is known out there for strongly coming out against homophobia, racism, et cetera and being the vanguard for shutting down that crap among the gun owners that believe it. Wouldn't that be a much better world? Why can't that HRA exist?

 No.6729

File: 1599872221996.jpg (113.06 KB, 500x695, 100:139, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6725
>The point though is that the rot in terms of bigoted gun owners is coming from the NRA out, like a spot of mold on a block of foodstuff
Eh, I don't think the NRA is really the source of any of this.  Part of the problem is that most Democrat-leaning people are opposed to gun rights, so the NRA is mainly populated with Republican-leaning people, who tend to be less favorable to things like LGBT equality.  But NRA as organization doesn't seem opposed to LGBT issues.  In fact, NRA even employs gay people in high-level positions:
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/02/26/gay-nra-official-says-gun-group-supports-lgbtqs/

>In the very real and personal sense, I'm going to have to be at least a little bit afraid participating at shooting events as somebody who's openly LGBT and disabled
If you mean physical safety, as in someone actually attacking you: a gun range is one of the least likely spots for someone to start shit with you over being LGBT, especially if you're accompanied by other family members.  "An armed society is a polite society."

But in regards to safety, I do have one recommendation for you: learn basic gun safety as well as any range-specific rules before visiting.  For some of them, you have to be prepared for in advance, e.g., rules about clothing (to prevent hot ejected brass from staying in prolonged contact with bare skin).  I'd also highly recommend a pair of electronic amplifying muffs (e.g., Howard Leight Impact Pro or Sport) plus earplugs, so that you can double up on hearing protection while still being able to hear people talking to you.

>Now just imagine an alternate world where some Hypothetical Rifle Association is known out there for strongly coming out against homophobia, racism, et cetera and being the vanguard for shutting down that crap among the gun owners that believe it. Wouldn't that be a much better world? Why can't that HRA exist?
There are several such groups, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols (also sponsors LGBT-friendly group shoots in several cities)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Gun_Club
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck_Revolt
The NRA is basically a single-issue group and doesn't take a position on other social/political issues.  

 No.6732

>>6729
r.e. the NRA, though, what about that lawsuit? And all of the other reports of hostile activity from the organization?

My point about the HRA / NRA isn't that I don't know that left-wing gun groups exist. Everybody knows that. It's about the NRA's choice to intermingle their gun related civil rights beliefs, which theoretically should apply to everyone, with prejudicial activities.

It's that being anti-prejudice =/= being left-wing. Being anti-prejudice makes you, well, not an asshole. I expect all human beings regardless of politics to not be a racist, homophobe, transphobe, et cetera as part of being a decent human being, same as not expecting somebody at first glance just meeting them of being a pedophile or bank robber or  whatnot (yes, I'm stupidly optimistic about human nature like that).

I expect an organization like, say, Habitat for Humanity to have strict policies not to discriminate against anybody for any reason in their projects promoting housing. It's against their very inherent mission. Same thing for, say, the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Their goals opposing censorship relate to everyone. Pretty much every NGO ought to be like that.

Similarly, the HRA would believe that anyone should be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and actively condemn all hatred between groups as contrary to that purpose. Because, well, it is contrary to that purpose. Right?

 No.6733

I mean there's a lot of quotes from the people in charge at the NRA making their positions clear.

Like: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160520/chris-w-coxs-remarks-at-nra-annual-meeting

>"The America we know is becoming unrecognizable. Everything we believe in everything we’ve always known to be good, right and true has been twisted, perverted and repackaged to our kids as wrong, backwards and abnormal. Who are our kids supposed to respect and admire? The media tells them Bruce Jenner is a national hero for transforming his body while our wounded warriors whose bodies were transformed by IEDs and rocket-propelled grenades can’t even get basic healthcare from the VA."

I don't begrudge the NRA head here his views, I guess, but I sure as hell don't want to run into him on a range, me in my make-up and painted nails and pink clothes. Like you said, the odds of physical safety being an issue is small. But I don't want to be around people that don't like me as a human being and oppose my right to exist.

 No.6737

File: 1599881493005.png (248.77 KB, 700x850, 14:17, farmer-girl.png) ImgOps Google

>>6732
>r.e. the NRA, though, what about that lawsuit? And all of the other reports of hostile activity from the organization?
Well, the lawsuit seemed to be the NRA condemning racist behavior of its affiliate?  I don't think that the NRA as an organization is anti-LGBT, but some of its officers and employees definitely seem to be.  And I guess the NRA can be rightfully criticized for not officially reprimanding its officers and employees who (in their capacity as officers/employees) make anti-LGBT remarks.

>It's that being anti-prejudice =/= being left-wing.
Ideally that would be true, but in our imperfect world, it's not.  Being anti-prejudice is definitely a left-wing stance in America.  

>But I don't want to be around people that don't like me as a human being and oppose my right to exist.
Very understandable.  You might check to see if there are any local ranges/clubs near you that have a pro-LGBT stance or if there are any LGBT-friendly shooting events (although these might all be postponed due to Corona).  At my local range, it seems people are generally accepting of anyone who supports the Second Amendment.  And come to think of it, probably at least some of anti-LGBT prejudice comes from using LGBT status as a proxy for one's stance on guns.  Most LGBT folks are Democrat-leaning, and most Democrat-leaning folks are anti-gun.  Once you've established you support 2A rights, people will start to see you, in some sense, as "one of them".

 No.6742

>>6721
The NRA's a garbage organization that doesn't care about people's rights. Basically only cares about what effects the manufacturers, and not a lot else.
Just look at any of their "compromises" they're always happy to sign on. Note; Compromise to the NRA means giving away half your stuff, instead of all of it.
Not much a compromise at all.

As to the rest, the internet makes fringe loonies a bigger deal than they actually are.
While revolution is something of a common sentiment with people around me, it's definitely not a cheerful prospect. And, of course, those guys aren't racist or anything like that. Not here anyway.

I don't know anything about the NRA and bigotry. These days what constitutes racism is rather up in the air, and people tend to chuck the card pretty haphazardly. So, what I will say, they don't represent the majority of gun owners, as plenty of us think the NRA's garbage and is actively selling our rights away.

 No.6743

>>6732
I'd suggest a whole lot of that comes down to what homophobia, transphoiba, racism, ect, is.
It's not agreed upon.

 No.6748

>>6737
How does the distinction work between "The NRA employs senior racist and anti-LGBT individuals who express those views in their official capacity and also expresses those views in their official materials" and "the NRA is racist and anti-LGBT"? Those two appear to be essentially the same to me. Come on.

Just imagine if, say, the President/CEO/whatever in charge of Habitat for Humanity or Doctors Without Borders or the United Way some other public service organization that's commonly thought of as responsible made a public statement casually mocking transgender volunteers and saying that their very existence is an abomination. He/she/they would be strummed out immediately. Why can't the NRA have the same moral standards?

I'm going to have to flatly disagree that being anti-prejudice is inherently left-wing. Hell, the two of us are examples. Neither of us are left-wing. Myself, I voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 with clear eyes and look back fondly to those campaigns that I followed.

Being anti-prejudice, like I said, is a base level thing about being a decent human being. It's like not wetting yourself in public or whatever. Hell, look at the recent major Supreme Court case outlawing LGBT discrimination in the workplace and check out the bipartisan, non-ideological majority in the Court as well as the mass approval in the country at large. Pretty clear.

 No.6749

>>6742
>>6743
Interesting. Thanks for the perspective. I've read similar stories online in various places.

 No.6750

File: 1599888036389.jpg (192.21 KB, 970x598, 485:299, 1519746177660.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6748
>Those two appear to be essentially the same to me
What I was trying to get at is the NRA doesn't have any official policy of being opposed to LGBT rights.  But you're right, there isn't much difference.

>I'm going to have to flatly disagree that being anti-prejudice is inherently left-wing.
Oh yeah, it's not inherently left-wing.  But there is a correlation.  Like, if all you know about someone is that he supports LGBT rights, would you guess that he's a Democrat or a Republican?  And likewise, if all know about someone is that he oppose LGBT rights, would you guess that he's a Democrat or a Republican?

>Being anti-prejudice, like I said, is a base level thing about being a decent human being.
I don't disagree.  But unfortunately, there are still some who do.

 No.6753

>>6750
>Oh yeah, it's not inherently left-wing.  But there is a correlation.  Like, if all you know about someone is that he supports LGBT rights, would you guess that he's a Democrat or a Republican?  And likewise, if all know about someone is that he oppose LGBT rights, would you guess that he's a Democrat or a Republican?

And if someone said that white people shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, or that men should all be treated as criminals, do you think they'd be a republican, or a democrat? Neither is really pro or anti prejudice, they just have different prejudices they like or dislike.

 No.6811

>>6743
Which is why white (or straight, or cis) people should listen to these groups actually experiencing it instead of insisting there's no racism/sexism/homophobia because they don't experience it.

Like, i'm a little lost for words as to what this thread is even about. It asks why more black people don't support open carry laws, and when given the answer "because cops and 2A supporters tend to be racist", they respond "No they aren't."

Do they want to know the answer to their question or not?

 No.6817

>>6811
Wait a minute. I've seen nothing said here about cops. They may very well in certain U.S. communities enact brutality against minority open carry activists. That's not been discussed here yet.

 No.6820

>>6817
Well it is a factor, but OK, your'e right. We haven't discussed that yet. But the rest of my statement still stands.

 No.6826

>>6811
Things appear more complicated than that. It's not a "no, they aren't" denial so much as a "most gun owners aren't extremists and aren't in league with the NRA's minority-baiting, so what's happening is that the small fringe is spoiling the broader group's image". Which might be wrong. But there's a distinction.

 No.6833

>>6811
People say a whole lot of things. If you lsiten to the radical Christians, they will relay you their experience about how horrible homosexuality is. if you listen to extreme racists, they'll rant about how bad a given race is, and give you a pile of anecdotal instances where they were right about their prejudice. If you listen to a sexist, they'll tell you how every woman in their life was a callous gold digger.

I have little interest in such things. I prefer evidence. Especially if you expect me to judge people for your presumed experience.

>and when given the answer "because cops and 2A supporters tend to be racist", they respond "No they aren't."
If you ask me "Why is the sky blue", and I tell you "It is because of the tears of God", would you just accept that at face value, believe that is completely true?
I would hope not.
People will always, universally question claims.
Especially if those claims run contrary to their own knowledge.

I have not known 2A supporters to be as a group "racist".
I am not convinced there is a significant issue of racism in police.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that this influences black open carry.

Your feelings, your opinions, your experience, that is not evidence I can see. That is not something tangible I can make judgement upon. There are millions of people in this world, with billions of different experiences.
I can grab one who will tell me one thing, and another who will contradict it in its entirety.
Why is your experience the holy text?
Why does your word get held to a different standard from the rest of us?


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]