"Gun Laws Bad for Blacks"

[Wink and the Gun]

An interesting article on the harmful effects of gun control laws for blacks in poor urban environments.

Strict gun laws are bad for blacks: Why African-Americans should value Second Amendment protections

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, according to the comments, the author is well-known for his "progressive" views and apparently envisions any failure of a Black man to succeed in life as someone else's fault. Regardless of these points, I have to say he was doing fine... right up until he got to the part about "reasonable gun control", which he seems to think includes "ban(ning) gun show sales, straw purchases, interstate gun trafficking, and other loopholes that enable handguns to get into the hands of criminals."
He goes on to decry the private ownership of what he calls WMDs "that have no sporting or self-defense purpose"...presumably, he refers to those evil black rifles, along with AK-pattern rifles and any of several other long guns that look like military firearms.

Obviously, I need not detail amongst the members of this board why what he views as "reasonable gun control" is a fallacy; control the criminals and there is no need to control the guns, and I probably don't need to explain the idiocy he embraces with the rest of that, either, however, for those new to INGO or those reading who may not be as familiar with the issues, I will anyway.

Banning gun show sales: The much-discussed "gun show loophole" that in truth, is a phantom. There is no such animal- the "loophole" is the fact that private citizens may buy and sell their property to other private citizens at their leisure, without involving someone who's paid a fee to obtain a title. To put it in perspective, if the "loophole" was "closed", it would mean that to sell a gun, you must do so at or through a retailer who handles them. To some, this makes sense because so many people die as a result of gun violence, however, many, many more people die in car accidents, and we don't have to buy and sell cars only at car dealers. People have been killed with various workshop tools as well, but if I have a hammer or screwdriver or chainsaw that my neighbor likes and wants to buy from me, I don't have to return to a hardware store and pay a fee to the proprietor to make the sale legal. Ah, but cars and tools have other purposes and after all, a gun is only useful for killing. Disagree. A gun is useful for many things; hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-defense among them. Most of the defensive gun uses, and there are about 2.5 million of these in any given year, do not involve a single shot being fired.

Straw purchases, that is, the purchase of a firearm by one who is not prevented by law from doing so for the purpose of delivering it to someone who is so prevented, is already unlawful, leading, in some cases, to fear on the part of a wife who wants to buy a gun for her husband. The intent of the law may be sound, but the execution of it is far less so.

"Interstate gun trafficking" sounds so ominous and frightening... it must be a terrible crime, right? Only... it's not. If I live in one state and want to buy a gun for someone in another (for example, my great-nephew, who lives several states away,) I cannot purchase a single-shot, .22LR rifle known as a "Davey Crickett" and put it in a box to send to his father to hold for him until he is of an age to learn about it's safe use. I cannot purchase it and take it to him, either. Nor can I go to the state where he lives, make the purchase, and deliver it there. No, I must purchase it here in my state, have it shipped from a gun dealer here to a gun dealer in his state, pay a fee to both dealers, and then, his father can go to that dealer, fill out paperwork, pay any state fees, wait out any state-mandated waiting periods, and only then may this small, "trainer"-type rifle go home with him to be held for his son's maturing. Yes, we are SO much safer when a man cannot purchase a rifle to be held in safekeeping for its eventual owner, who is two years old, to grow up a little bit.

As should be obvious, none of these laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns; they are criminals, which means they do not obey laws! Besides, if your intent is to commit robbery, rape, or murder, all of which are against the law and with far greater penalties, will a bunch of words on a piece of paper telling you that it is illegal for you to possess a firearm really stop you from doing so?

As for the point about the "weapons of mass destruction", and again, I can only guess that the author refers to specific rifles with a military origin and basic appearance, I invite his attention to the well-publicized riots in Los Angeles around the time of the Rodney King verdict. News broadcasts showed Korean shopkeepers standing on their rooftops with AK-pattern rifles, near other shops without the owners being armed. Guess which shops didn't get robbed. One further note of interest, around the same time, many of the celebrities who had come out in support of such things as waiting periods, law-enforcement checks, etc., found in their time of fear and yes, need, they went to gun stores to purchase pistols for their own defense. The dealers were all too happy to take their money, but alas, the laws they had embraced now prevented them from leaving the stores with the guns for which they'd just paid. They were told to come back in 7-14 days to pick up their guns, in compliance with state law, fame, fortune, and name-recognition notwithstanding.

I hope that this has been educational for those who have not heard it before. The facts backing up statements within the text can be found readily from sources such as Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths, a compilation of various of these facts, exhaustively researched and painstakingly footnoted.

Blessings,
Bill
​

 

[Wink and the Gun]

Well right, I agree that his gun control views are much different than ours, however, I still found the main thrust of the article to be an interesting point of view. Not saying I agree with everything, just found it interesting.

 

[Redemption]

I think the gun laws are bad for we European Americans.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I never understood why 4473's ask what your ethnicity is.. race shouldn't matter one bit.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I never understood why 4473's ask what your ethnicity is.. race shouldn't matter one bit.

Maybe to help identify the buyer later on? Naaah, couldn't be that.

Where's my tinfoil hat smiley?

 

[Bapak2ja]

Well, according to the comments, the author is well-known for his "progressive" views and apparently envisions any failure of a Black man to succeed in life as someone else's fault. Regardless of these points, I have to say he was doing fine... right up until he got to the part about "reasonable gun control", which he seems to think includes "ban(ning) gun show sales, straw purchases, interstate gun trafficking, and other loopholes that enable handguns to get into the hands of criminals."
He goes on to decry the private ownership of what he calls WMDs "that have no sporting or self-defense purpose"...presumably, he refers to those evil black rifles, along with AK-pattern rifles and any of several other long guns that look like military firearms.

Obviously, I need not detail amongst the members of this board why what he views as "reasonable gun control" is a fallacy; control the criminals and there is no need to control the guns, and I probably don't need to explain the idiocy he embraces with the rest of that, either, however, for those new to INGO or those reading who may not be as familiar with the issues, I will anyway.

Banning gun show sales: The much-discussed "gun show loophole" that in truth, is a phantom. There is no such animal- the "loophole" is the fact that private citizens may buy and sell their property to other private citizens at their leisure, without involving someone who's paid a fee to obtain a title. To put it in perspective, if the "loophole" was "closed", it would mean that to sell a gun, you must do so at or through a retailer who handles them. To some, this makes sense because so many people die as a result of gun violence, however, many, many more people die in car accidents, and we don't have to buy and sell cars only at car dealers. People have been killed with various workshop tools as well, but if I have a hammer or screwdriver or chainsaw that my neighbor likes and wants to buy from me, I don't have to return to a hardware store and pay a fee to the proprietor to make the sale legal. Ah, but cars and tools have other purposes and after all, a gun is only useful for killing. Disagree. A gun is useful for many things; hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-defense among them. Most of the defensive gun uses, and there are about 2.5 million of these in any given year, do not involve a single shot being fired.

Straw purchases, that is, the purchase of a firearm by one who is not prevented by law from doing so for the purpose of delivering it to someone who is so prevented, is already unlawful, leading, in some cases, to fear on the part of a wife who wants to buy a gun for her husband. The intent of the law may be sound, but the execution of it is far less so.

"Interstate gun trafficking" sounds so ominous and frightening... it must be a terrible crime, right? Only... it's not. If I live in one state and want to buy a gun for someone in another (for example, my great-nephew, who lives several states away,) I cannot purchase a single-shot, .22LR rifle known as a "Davey Crickett" and put it in a box to send to his father to hold for him until he is of an age to learn about it's safe use. I cannot purchase it and take it to him, either. Nor can I go to the state where he lives, make the purchase, and deliver it there. No, I must purchase it here in my state, have it shipped from a gun dealer here to a gun dealer in his state, pay a fee to both dealers, and then, his father can go to that dealer, fill out paperwork, pay any state fees, wait out any state-mandated waiting periods, and only then may this small, "trainer"-type rifle go home with him to be held for his son's maturing. Yes, we are SO much safer when a man cannot purchase a rifle to be held in safekeeping for its eventual owner, who is two years old, to grow up a little bit.

As should be obvious, none of these laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns; they are criminals, which means they do not obey laws! Besides, if your intent is to commit robbery, rape, or murder, all of which are against the law and with far greater penalties, will a bunch of words on a piece of paper telling you that it is illegal for you to possess a firearm really stop you from doing so?

As for the point about the "weapons of mass destruction", and again, I can only guess that the author refers to specific rifles with a military origin and basic appearance, I invite his attention to the well-publicized riots in Los Angeles around the time of the Rodney King verdict. News broadcasts showed Korean shopkeepers standing on their rooftops with AK-pattern rifles, near other shops without the owners being armed. Guess which shops didn't get robbed. One further note of interest, around the same time, many of the celebrities who had come out in support of such things as waiting periods, law-enforcement checks, etc., found in their time of fear and yes, need, they went to gun stores to purchase pistols for their own defense. The dealers were all too happy to take their money, but alas, the laws they had embraced now prevented them from leaving the stores with the guns for which they'd just paid. They were told to come back in 7-14 days to pick up their guns, in compliance with state law, fame, fortune, and name-recognition notwithstanding.

I hope that this has been educational for those who have not heard it before. The facts backing up statements within the text can be found readily from sources such as Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths, a compilation of various of these facts, exhaustively researched and painstakingly footnoted.

Blessings,
Bill
​

Magnificent work! Excellent writing and logical, powerful argumentation! Adequate documentation. Thanks for your work. Out of rep, so five thumbs up is the best I can do now.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Bapak2ja - Got him for ya!


Here's the key to it all from BOR's post:

As should be obvious, none of these laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns; they are criminals, which means they do not obey laws! Besides, if your intent is to commit robbery, rape, or murder, all of which are against the law and with far greater penalties, will a bunch of words on a piece of paper telling you that it is illegal for you to possess a firearm really stop you from doing so?

Reminds me of a popular slogan that goes something like: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws wil have guns."

 

[Hkindiana]

I never understood why 4473's ask what your ethnicity is.. race shouldn't matter one bit.

Well, according to most anthropologists, Mankind originated in the country we now call Africa. So, you wouldn't be wrong for checking the box that says "African American", since that is where your original ancestors are from. I wonder what the ATF would think if we ALL started checking that box?
I read about a college student who was kicked out school because he kept indicating that he was an "African American". The funny thing was that he WAS from Africa, his parents WERE from Africa, his grandparents WERE form Africa, and his great grandparents WERE from Africa. He was a naturalized US citizen, so he WAS an African American - he just wasn't black.

 

[rjstew317]

i'm still waiting for the box that just says "American" because that's how i identify myself. I've never been to (or heard of) the mythical land of caucasia, so how can i be Caucasian? food for thought

 

[Bunnykid68]

Some of the more restrictive gun laws of old were designed to keep black folks from being able to get and possess firearms. And we know once a law gets put on the books it is damn near impossible to get rid of.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Well, according to the comments, the author is well-known for his "progressive" views and apparently envisions any failure of a Black man to succeed in life as someone else's fault.

That's not correct at all Bill. I've met and talked with Dr. Hill on several occasions. He definately has an east coast liberal worldview, but he is not a typical race pimp ala Jessee Jackson / Al Sharpton.

I think he calls most of it fairly accurately. There was a time when blacks were oppressed. That fact cannot reasonably be denied. Some would say that time has not yet passed. Situationally there's a case that can be made, but I don't think it's systemic. So I don't think your characterization is quite correct.

Regardless of these points, I have to say he was doing fine... right up until he got to the part about "reasonable gun control", which he seems to think includes "ban(ning) gun show sales, straw purchases, interstate gun trafficking, and other loopholes that enable handguns to get into the hands of criminals."


He goes on to decry the private ownership of what he calls WMDs "that have no sporting or self-defense purpose"...presumably, he refers to those evil black rifles, along with AK-pattern rifles and any of several other long guns that look like military firearms.​

I respectfully submit you presume too much. We don't know what he means, because he didn't say it clearly. He could have just as easily meant bombs capable of destroying a city block. Out in our neck of the woods the same device provides entertainment when used in combination with highpowered rifles and mass quanities of beer. Remember that people who don't own cars and live on the 50th floor of a building have a different view of the world. Not saying they're correct; I dont think they are. But rather than scream past each other taking a little time to understand an opponent's views give an opportunity to enlighten them.

Obviously, I need not detail amongst the members of this board why what he views as "reasonable gun control" is a fallacy; control the criminals and there is no need to control the guns, and I probably don't need to explain the idiocy he embraces with the rest of that, either, however, for those new to INGO or those reading who may not be as familiar with the issues, I will anyway.​

No disagreement at all.

Banning gun show sales: The much-discussed "gun show loophole" that in truth, is a phantom. There is no such animal- the "loophole" is the fact that private citizens may buy and sell their property to other private citizens at their leisure, without involving someone who's paid a fee to obtain a title. To put it in perspective, if the "loophole" was "closed", it would mean that to sell a gun, you must do so at or through a retailer who handles them. To some, this makes sense because so many people die as a result of gun violence, however, many, many more people die in car accidents, and we don't have to buy and sell cars only at car dealers. People have been killed with various workshop tools as well, but if I have a hammer or screwdriver or chainsaw that my neighbor likes and wants to buy from me, I don't have to return to a hardware store and pay a fee to the proprietor to make the sale legal. Ah, but cars and tools have other purposes and after all, a gun is only useful for killing. Disagree. A gun is useful for many things; hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-defense among them. Most of the defensive gun uses, and there are about 2.5 million of these in any given year, do not involve a single shot being fired.​

The gun show loophole is non-existant. Selling a firearm without a 4473 is not without exposure though. Without trying to offend anyone, let me explain the real issue.

Manufacturer builds a firearm. They submit paperwork to ATF telling them the firearm exists. They transfer to a dealer or distributor. They add the weapon to their books. We'll take the dealer leg. The dealer sells it to an individual. A 4473 is filled out. Brady Bunch is called. OK given.

Fast forward to the gun show. An individual gets a table and sells his guns without a license. To whomever he wants. Free market as it's supposed to be, right? Wrong. He doesn't have to fill out a 4473, doesn't have to call the Brady Bunch, but it is still a crime to transfer a weapon to a non-proper person. If the seller fails to ask for a driver's license to show residency, ask if the buyer has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, along with the other questions on the 4473 and transfers the weapon, he just committed a federal felony.

There was recently a case where a private straw purchase sale in Texas to an illegal alien ended in the seller's conviction for a federal felony. I'm not defending the law, just stating the results of it. An argument can be made that given the current state of the law, transferring via a 4473 protects the seller.

Straw purchases, that is, the purchase of a firearm by one who is not prevented by law from doing so [STRIKE]for the purpose of delivering it to someone who is so prevented[/STRIKE] on behalf of another person, is already unlawful, leading, in some cases, to fear on the part of a wife who wants to buy a gun for her husband. The intent of the law may be sound, but the execution of it is far less so.​

FIFY. You may buy a gun as a gift for another person, as long as that person is a proper person under the law, the weapon is not on the NFA registry, and the transfer itself is lawful. You may not buy a weapon on behalf of another person, whether that person is a proper person or not.

"Interstate gun trafficking" sounds so ominous and frightening... it must be a terrible crime, right? Only... it's not. If I live in one state and want to buy a gun for someone in another (for example, my great-nephew, who lives several states away,) I cannot purchase a single-shot, .22LR rifle known as a "Davey Crickett" and put it in a box to send to his father to hold for him until he is of an age to learn about it's safe use. I cannot purchase it and take it to him, either. Nor can I go to the state where he lives, make the purchase, and deliver it there. No, I must purchase it here in my state, have it shipped from a gun dealer here to a gun dealer in his state, pay a fee to both dealers, and then, his father can go to that dealer, fill out paperwork, pay any state fees, wait out any state-mandated waiting periods, and only then may this small, "trainer"-type rifle go home with him to be held for his son's maturing. Yes, we are SO much safer when a man cannot purchase a rifle to be held in safekeeping for its eventual owner, who is two years old, to grow up a little bit.​

Interstate trafficking of firearms is a terrible crime. Not necessarily because it should be, but because it is. You can go to prison for a very long time and pay a very large fine for doing it. Again, not defending the law, simply stating its effect. Your example isn't quite right. There are bordering state exceptions and the like, but essentially you are correct. As with anything else, there are ways to change it. Vote in legislators who will change the law.

As should be obvious, none of these laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns; they are criminals, which means they do not obey laws! Besides, if your intent is to commit robbery, rape, or murder, all of which are against the law and with far greater penalties, will a bunch of words on a piece of paper telling you that it is illegal for you to possess a firearm really stop you from doing so?​

As for the point about the "weapons of mass destruction", and again, I can only guess that the author refers to specific rifles with a military origin and basic appearance, I invite his attention to the well-publicized riots in Los Angeles around the time of the Rodney King verdict. News broadcasts showed Korean shopkeepers standing on their rooftops with AK-pattern rifles, near other shops without the owners being armed. Guess which shops didn't get robbed. One further note of interest, around the same time, many of the celebrities who had come out in support of such things as waiting periods, law-enforcement checks, etc., found in their time of fear and yes, need, they went to gun stores to purchase pistols for their own defense. The dealers were all too happy to take their money, but alas, the laws they had embraced now prevented them from leaving the stores with the guns for which they'd just paid. They were told to come back in 7-14 days to pick up their guns, in compliance with state law, fame, fortune, and name-recognition notwithstanding.​

Again, no on knows what he means. Everything you've said is conjecture.

I hope that this has been educational for those who have not heard it before. The facts backing up statements within the text can be found readily from sources such as Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths, a compilation of various of these facts, exhaustively researched and painstakingly footnoted.​

Blessings,
Bill​

I think you also have to consider his audience. If he doesn't use some of the phrases he does and raise some of the points he does he can't get a debate going. There are a couple points that are a tad twisted, but all in all I thought it was a good read, especially when the intended readership is factored in.

 

[nate1865]

Gun laws are a bad sign for everybody and race has nothing to do with it.

Gun laws mean there are people trying to keep free and moral men from being as free as they could be (and thus making them them more subject to evil), or it means that the population has become so morally corrupt that they cannot be trusted with firearms and society is revoking their privileges.

I don't think gun laws impact anyone just because of their skin color. I doubt there's any text in any gun law regarding skin color or it probably never would have made it law (and rightfully so!)

So, while I may agree with the author on some premises, I think he is missing a major point that none of the laws get triggered because of their skin color.

 

[Trading_Fool]

From what I read, I don't think that race was his main argument. It seems to me that he was talking about impoverished areas and those living there. The assumption of race is there, but the problem that he is talking about is about economic means. Basically, the ghetto is dangerous. Who knew?

 

[Yamaha]

Well, according to most anthropologists, Mankind originated in the country we now call Africa. So, you wouldn't be wrong for checking the box that says "African American", since that is where your original ancestors are from. I wonder what the ATF would think if we ALL started checking that box?
I read about a college student who was kicked out school because he kept indicating that he was an "African American". The funny thing was that he WAS from Africa, his parents WERE from Africa, his grandparents WERE form Africa, and his great grandparents WERE from Africa. He was a naturalized US citizen, so he WAS an African American - he just wasn't black.

He could and should sue the heck out of that school....no joke, if you are of any race.....you can apply for "minority" scholorships......I had a friend who won a NAACP scholorship.....he was caucasion.......if they refuse, racism. Ignorant racism makes me laugh

 

[Bill of Rights]

It was pointed out to me that while my reply did not address race other than to mention the author's personal biases, the basic premise of the article focuses on a race issue and as such, this violates one of our INGO forum rules. Fenway has put the rule in place that discussions of race will not be continued here and as such, I'm about to lock this thread. I will be replying to SemperFiUSMC, who answered my post, in another thread concentrating on the effects of gun laws on any population, race-neutral and will post a link to that thread.

ETA: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/the_2nd_amendment/120968-the_effect_of_gun_control_laws.html

Blessings,
Bill