The Hill: We Need Gun Grabbing Policies Because Of Raaaaacism

Over at The Hill, Frederick Staidum Jr., Ph.D has been given a platform to complain about gun ownership, and he sees everything in terms of raaaaacism and sex, because he’s a scholar of race and sexuality in 19th-century American culture and literature at Loyola University Chicago

Gun control is all about gun violence — we can’t forget who we’re trying to protect

In response to growing activism following the Parkland, Fla., mass shooting, federal and state legislatures have passed a variety of new gun control measures. The 2018 omnibus spending bill established the STOP School Violence Act, which increases coordination between law enforcement and schools, provides mental health crises training for teachers and administrators, and ”hardens” school safety systems with metal detectors, door-locking mechanisms, and anonymous reporting and emergency communication technologies. (snip)

Florida passed the most controversial of reforms: arming teachers. And just last week, Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor surprised the nation by signing the strictest gun-control laws in the history of his state.

Vermont is being sued over parts of their just passed laws for Constitution violations, at both the state and federal levels. But, you know, many of these laws are raaaaacist

While these developments are celebrated by gun-control advocates and political observers as dislodging longstanding NRA-backed recalcitrance, we still aren’t getting to the root of the problem: not simply controlling access to guns, but reducing gun violence. No matter how well-intentioned, these policies can and have produced unjust results, especially for black women and girls.

For example, look what happens when we give law enforcement a larger role in schools. While black students make up 15.5 percent of total enrollment, they account for 33.41 percent of all students subjected to school-related arrests.

This disparity affects black girls at a disproportionate rate, which is probably related to the perception of black girls as less innocent, more adult-like and in need of less protection than white girls of the same age.

Could it possibly be that the Black students, especially the girls, are more apt to be involved in conduct that gets them detained and even arrested? If people are going to play the race card, they damned well better have some facts to offer that they didn’t deserve to be arrested. Why do we never hear this about Latinos/Hispanics or Asians?

Another vulnerable population are victims of intimate partner violence. While laws exist to prevent convicted abusers from possessing guns, most only apply to legal spouses and parents, which leaves a so-called “girlfriend loophole.” In other words, a violent husband may be restricted from purchasing a gun, while a violent boyfriend is not. Thankfully, some of the newer laws attempt to eliminate this loophole.

Mr. Staidum has a point, which is why many states are looking to expand on these laws. But, of course

Still, still policies don’t address the disproportionate gun deaths of transgender women of color. Approximately half of all transgender people will endure intimate partner violence during their life, yet laws written to keep guns out of abusers’ hands often won’t protect them.

Part of the problem is the narrow language of “domestic” and “girlfriends,” which allows intimate violence experienced outside of “traditional” cisgender and heterosexual relations to fall through the cracks.

Not just the gender confused, but Black gender confused.

We’re focused on mass shootings rather than the emotional and psychological pain caused by more frequent forms of gun violence plaguing black communities. Again, part of the problem is bias. Whites have a history of not seeing black people as vulnerable, which limits the imagined reach of reforms. Researchers at the University of Virginia and Northwestern University found that 6 in 10 white respondents choose black subjects as those who are more likely to embody superhuman characteristics, such as withstanding “the pain of burning hot coals” or quelling “hunger and thirst.”

Well, there’s an interesting thing. Why is there such a high rate of gun violence in Black communities, which tend to be in cities run by the Democratic Party? Mr. Staidum wants to blame this on Whitey with his “whites have a history of not seeing black people as vulnerable.” Perhaps he should make it about politics, since one party sees blacks as simply a voting block to be pandered to and controlled on Democrat plantations. Perhaps he should wonder why there is such a high rate of violence, including with firearms, in these Black communities. Look at himself, as it where.

The point is, we can’t have an effective gun control debate without a comprehensive, intersectional approach to gun violence, which centers the experience of women and girls of color. Otherwise, we risk creating solutions that inordinately harm our most at-risk populations.

Funny. We have to use even further Leftist policies to solve the fallout from Leftist policies.

At the end of the day, though, this is all about further and further restrictions on the ability of law abiding citizens to own firearms for protections. As someone in the Hill comments asks “The one question I ask and the left never answers is this. How does taking firearms away from law abiding citizens and making them helpless make criminals harmless?” Well, just go to Chicago or Baltimore, and see how their restrictive gun policies work.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “The Hill: We Need Gun Grabbing Policies Because Of Raaaaacism”

  1. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host quoted Dr Staidum:

    While black students make up 15.5 percent of total enrollment, they account for 33.41 percent of all students subjected to school-related arrests.

    Is this evidence that ‘school-related arrests’ are being disproportionately harshly against black students, or is it evidence that black students commit a disproportionate number of arrest-worthy offenses?

    The left would have you believe that the criminal justice system is unfair to blacks, but that is pure propaganda. We already know that young black males are the most frequent victims of homicide, but we also know that young black males are the most frequent killer of those black male victims.

    A murdered man is absolute evidence that a crime has been committed; there is no grey area there, there is no discretion in just letting that stuff slide. And black men are the ones who have done the killing; there’s no getting around that fact, either.

    Why, then, ought we to think that ‘school-related arrests’ are not linked to greater offense rates by black students? What evidence is there that black students and white students offend at the same proportionate rate as each other, while the outside crime rates are so very different?

    Remember: Broward County managed to reduce its state-high school-related arrest rate by simply not referring crimes to the sheriff . . . and that’s why Nikolas de Jesus Cruz had no criminal record, and was able to buy a rifle legally.

  2. formwiz says:

    You’d be surprised how many black people pack just for self-defense.

  3. Jeffery says:

    James Shaw, Jr., a black man, wrested an AR-15 from another white mass shooter, Travis Reinking, who had just killed 4 and injured others at a Waffle House outside Nashville. Apparently, Shaw took the rifle from Reinking as he was reloading.

    This kind of terrorist attack is getting more prevalent in the US.

    • david7134 says:

      You are right. Mass shootings are getting more frequent. The liberals are trying to start a war. We need to do something, like reversing decades of liberal policy on handling mental health. Now, why do you point out that a person is black? Is that your racist attitude at work?

    • Dana says:

      That’s what happens when we make public names of the shooters, most of whom seem to be wanting to commit suicide by cop, and get their name in the media by going out in a blaze of sadistic glory. They saw what happened to the Columbine shooters, both dead, but their names, ah, their names, for a while, everybody knew their names.

      Too bad that there wasn’t someone else there who could help Mr Shaw, and tackle and hold Mr Reinking for the police . . . and perhaps beat him to a bloody pulp while doing so. But, perhaps everyone else was trying to aid the wounded.

      • Jeffery says:

        Travis Shaw, Jr., denied being a hero, saying he was just trying to save his own life. He rushed the murderer when he was either reloading or had a jam. Shaw burned his hand when he grabbed the barrel and may have had his arm grazed by a bullet. But his courageous actions saved not just himself but likely others too. When the murderer’s jacket was recovered it had two loaded magazines.

  4. Jeffery says:

    And this on the Nashville murderer:

    Months before the man suspected of killing four people at a Tennessee Waffle House on Sunday became the target of a manhunt, authorities arrested him for trying to breach a barrier near the White House and later seized his guns.

    Among the four weapons they took from TR was the AR-15 semi­automatic rifle that police say he used in the Waffle House on Sunday. Two of the other weapons — a long gun and a handgun — are missing from TR’s apartment, and as of Sunday evening,
    was still at large.

    TR, 29, was trying to meet President Trump when he attempted to cross a security barrier at the White House complex in July, federal authorities said. After an investigation by the FBI office in Springfield, Ill. — near where TR lived at the time — state and local officials confiscated TR’s guns and revoked his firearm license.

    The guns, however, were later returned to TR’s father, who has acknowledged he gave them back to his son, officials said.
    Under Illinois law, certain confiscated guns can be released to a family member, but TR could not lawfully possess the weapons in that state. It’s unclear whether possessing the weapons was illegal in Tennessee.

    • o0Nighthawk0o says:

      So another criminal, who wasn’t legally allowed to possess a firearm, possessed a firearm. Weird how criminals don’t obey the law.

      And a national reciprocity law would remove the Tennessee gray area.

  5. Jeffery says:

    TEACH asked:

    How does taking firearms away from law abiding citizens and making them helpless make criminals harmless?

    Perhaps you could reconfigure your question more honestly. Is having a semi-automatic pistol instead of an AR-15 “making them helpless”?

    • gitarcarver says:

      Is having a semi-automatic pistol instead of an AR-15 “making them helpless”?

      Perhaps you could reconfigure your question more honestly. Does a semi-auto handgun or a semi auto rifle fire at a faster rate? Which is more concealable? Which is more responsible for crimes and deaths?

      Yes, people are “helpless” when the government restricts choices on whims and “feelings” rather than facts.

      Perhaps you should start restricting the number of shells a shotgun can carry to two. Then get back to us.

      • Jeffery says:

        You took the position that any further restrictions make one helpless. That’s not true.

        Do the current restrictions make you helpless? Why aren’t you campaigning for access to fully automatic weapons (machine guns) or sawed-off shotguns for home defense? Certainly they would be more effective when your home is invaded by a gang of bad guys.

        For a number of reasons our home-grown domestic terrorists choose AR-15 assault style rifles for mass shootings, as occurred this weekend in outside Nashville.

        Maybe you should get AP bullets (you may have to load your own) just in case the gang of bad guys wears top-notch body armor. Are restrictions on AP ammo an infringement of your 2A rights??

Pirate's Cove