5 ms·

The central conceit of this article is that gun control as implemented in the US is racist (the NRA is discussed as an advocacy group that is hypocritical and u

The central conceit of this article is that gun control as implemented in the US is racist (the NRA is discussed as an advocacy group that is hypocritical and ultimately supports many of these racist laws), which I agree with. That anecdote is not about the NRA, but there are others that are damning in my opinion. > The NRA, funded (to a significant but unclear degree) by an industry that depends on a huge market for illegal guns to ensure profitability, has called for putting those very same black-market (and, not incidentally often black) customers in prison for extremely long periods of time. > At the NRA’s May convention, Donald Trump, accepting the group’s endorsement, complained that “President Obama tried to take the guns from law-abiding Americans but has reduced prosecutions of violent criminals who use guns.” Trump, as usual, knew his audience well, and his speech was in line with a recent push by the NRA to double down on foreboding law-and-order talk, warning that liberals, in the name of reform, want to flood the streets with criminals and disarm the citizenry. > But the NRA has a long history of agitating for harsh sentencing and prison construction. And it has relentlessly warned that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The notion is not only vigilante but profoundly carceral, grounding the right of certain people to own guns in the criminality of others. > When a Minnesota police officer shot Philando Castile dead by in his car, he was carrying a legal gun that his girlfriend has said he told the officer he possessed. His bloodied body, viewed by millions online, called the gun rights movement’s bluff: is a black man carrying a gun that he was licensed to carry a “good guy” when he is shot dead by the police? The NRA was criticized, seemingly even by its own members, for, like the officer who shot him, failing to acknowledge Castile’s right to carry. I think you're kidding yourself if you think the NRA exists to support anyone except for white gun owners and cops.

bmelton 10y ago
> But the NRA has a long history of agitating for harsh sentencing and prison construction I don't mean to defend the NRA here -- as you'll see from my other comments while I recognize and appreciate the stated role they perform, I'm not their biggest fan. Regardless, that particular allegation doesn't carry much water for me. Speaking in broad strokes, every time there is a shooting, it seems incumbent on every gun owner to bear the responsibility for the bad action. Because we support the right to keep and bear arms, we are often cast by the media as the very reason that whomever was able to effect whatever recent spate of gun violence occurred, and must all be held accountable. Whenever politicians hold session, they urge to DO SOMETHING, and rarely care what that something is so long as they can show that they have been responsive in passing legislation that may positively affect this situation in a future outcome, even when it's unlikely to have any effect. If you're incapable or unwilling to cede to things like increased background checks, or unable to sign on to a blanket ban of muzzle shrouds (as our politicians so often request), there aren't a lot of politically viable options for "doing something", which casts the second amendment lot as obstructionist. What's left? Well, increased sentencing for gun felons. These increased sentences are regrettably more constitutional, because they at least are the result of due process, and do not infringe the rights of law abiding citizens. Are they good policy? I would argue not, but if you're faced with the nefariously binary options of removing rights from the law abiding vs. removing rights from proven criminals, it is easy to see how they routinely choose the latter.
- knucklesandwich 10y ago
  As others have pointed out, there are other 2A advocacy groups that are single issue focused. I have a hard time believing that the NRA has accidentally become involved in mass incarceration. That being said, if the dilemma is gun violence, you've presented a false dichotomy for options. Harsher criminalization likely doesn't do anything, it may just make recidivism worse and temporarily relocate violence into prisons. Economic violence and inequality is the root cause for much of the gun violence in the US (along with some cultural psychological heritage related to frontier life and individualism, but this is a more difficult issue to solve). Deep poverty, racist and invasive police, lack of access to nutritious food, lack of access to childcare and quality education, etc. Not just for people of color (although they disproportionately suffer from inequality), but for white poor people as well. Economic violence is the backdrop for violent crime, and if the NRA actually cared about solving their image of being an advocacy group for middle income whites and cops, they would spend time lobbying to solve these issues, not locking up poor people.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    I don't disagree with much that you've said at all. That said, when has "let's fix socio-economic disparity" been seriously considered by our legislature for anything? It doesn't fit into a soundbite, and is both too nuanced and locality-centric to be easily cottoned to in a federal bill. It's far too pragmatic to fit into the necessity of a 'do something' response. Aside from the infeasibility of it in today's political climate, great points all around.
    - knucklesandwich 10y ago
      I just don't subscribe to that kind of realpolitik. There's nothing infeasible about presenting these kinds of solutions, there's only people unwilling to present them or those who do a bad job of it. Plus what's the proof that this is even the case? Even aside from the ethical coherency of viewing civil rights as a comprehensive struggle for ordinary people, there are political advantages as well given you can widely expand your coalition across racial and income barriers. People of color own guns and enjoy using them, but will back a candidate supporting background checks, assault weapon bans, etc. if their alternative is pro-gun law & order racist.

bmelton 10y ago

> But the NRA has a long history of agitating for harsh sentencing and prison construction I don't mean to defend the NRA here -- as you'll see from my other comments while I recognize and appreciate the stated role they perform, I'm not their biggest fan. Regardless, that particular allegation doesn't carry much water for me. Speaking in broad strokes, every time there is a shooting, it seems incumbent on every gun owner to bear the responsibility for the bad action. Because we support the right to keep and bear arms, we are often cast by the media as the very reason that whomever was able to effect whatever recent spate of gun violence occurred, and must all be held accountable. Whenever politicians hold session, they urge to DO SOMETHING, and rarely care what that something is so long as they can show that they have been responsive in passing legislation that may positively affect this situation in a future outcome, even when it's unlikely to have any effect. If you're incapable or unwilling to cede to things like increased background checks, or unable to sign on to a blanket ban of muzzle shrouds (as our politicians so often request), there aren't a lot of politically viable options for "doing something", which casts the second amendment lot as obstructionist. What's left? Well, increased sentencing for gun felons. These increased sentences are regrettably more constitutional, because they at least are the result of due process, and do not infringe the rights of law abiding citizens. Are they good policy? I would argue not, but if you're faced with the nefariously binary options of removing rights from the law abiding vs. removing rights from proven criminals, it is easy to see how they routinely choose the latter.

knucklesandwich 10y ago
As others have pointed out, there are other 2A advocacy groups that are single issue focused. I have a hard time believing that the NRA has accidentally become involved in mass incarceration. That being said, if the dilemma is gun violence, you've presented a false dichotomy for options. Harsher criminalization likely doesn't do anything, it may just make recidivism worse and temporarily relocate violence into prisons. Economic violence and inequality is the root cause for much of the gun violence in the US (along with some cultural psychological heritage related to frontier life and individualism, but this is a more difficult issue to solve). Deep poverty, racist and invasive police, lack of access to nutritious food, lack of access to childcare and quality education, etc. Not just for people of color (although they disproportionately suffer from inequality), but for white poor people as well. Economic violence is the backdrop for violent crime, and if the NRA actually cared about solving their image of being an advocacy group for middle income whites and cops, they would spend time lobbying to solve these issues, not locking up poor people.
- bmelton 10y ago
  I don't disagree with much that you've said at all. That said, when has "let's fix socio-economic disparity" been seriously considered by our legislature for anything? It doesn't fit into a soundbite, and is both too nuanced and locality-centric to be easily cottoned to in a federal bill. It's far too pragmatic to fit into the necessity of a 'do something' response. Aside from the infeasibility of it in today's political climate, great points all around.
  - knucklesandwich 10y ago
    I just don't subscribe to that kind of realpolitik. There's nothing infeasible about presenting these kinds of solutions, there's only people unwilling to present them or those who do a bad job of it. Plus what's the proof that this is even the case? Even aside from the ethical coherency of viewing civil rights as a comprehensive struggle for ordinary people, there are political advantages as well given you can widely expand your coalition across racial and income barriers. People of color own guns and enjoy using them, but will back a candidate supporting background checks, assault weapon bans, etc. if their alternative is pro-gun law & order racist.