First off, it's rare that a racist person is proud about it anymore, or even aware of it, so expecting to find facially damning quotes is pointless; it must be inferred. Luckily, the definition of the term does not rely on pride nor intent, but merely the belief that one race is intrinsically superior/inferior to others (as opposed to bigotry, which is founded in baseless assumptions or misunderstanding, but does not necessarily carry the animus of true racism).
"Don't bother what? Because we don't agree with you?"
Because RX has repeatedly ignored my direct responses to his numerous pot-stirring comments & threads lately. When you demand to see proof that "anyone" is promoting gun control under racial reasoning, and reply "here's a guy who says all young black men & their communities should be disarmed," and claim it is irrelevant...it is either petulance or bad faith. I'm bored & laid up with a cold at the moment, so I'll indulge you both (again)
"To observe that black men shoot and get shot out of proportion to whites isn't any more racist than observing who gets skin cancer more. Observing race isn't the same as hating other races."
While factual, the solutions chosen as a remedy for the situation are indicative of racism (I'll get to it in a moment). Your exact comment, spoken at countless universities & public forums, would also elicit cries of racism. I won't bother proving this since it is so readily obvious, but by all means prove me wrong for a change. Perhaps suggest we ban sunscreen so dark-skinned people with slightly less need for it are not potentially harmed by the chemical run-off of all the light-skinned people who so desperately do (which is a pretty direct metaphor)
Okay, starting from basics, here;
1) Primary motivation for gun control is popular control (for whatever reason, it doesn't really matter what)
2) Scared people are more willing to cede control to an authority that alleviates this pain
3) Fear of violence/death is the only remaining fear in an industrialized setting besides poverty
4) All else being equal, poor populations of high density always have higher a higher crime rate (a reality of economics)
5) Since the founding of America and most multi-racial societies throughout history, race is a primary indicator of social standing (for a number of real and imagined reasons that are far outside the scope of discussions here), the result always being certain racial groups are closely associated with poverty
6) Fear of violence (and to a lesser extent poverty) is easily linked to these crime-ridden, impoverished populations; those outside them 'reasonably' wish to be insulated
7) Laws are passed to reduce the perceived threat from these groups, be it disarmament or housing (containment) policies. An ever-present and convenient scapegoat. And like the sacrificial scapegoats of old, harming these groups doesn't really accomplish anything useful.
*
Ironically, these groups are among the most resilient to gestures of police authority, crime being committed at higher rates in the first place because the reward is greater than the risk of being apprehended for a small portion of the group.
Ironically, these groups are at far, far greater risk of violence & crime than the more well-healed people these laws are passed to protect, but the laws are far less effective at reducing the internal threat to the group than they are at lowering internal defenses against crime. It's much like destroying your entire immune system with chemo to stamp out a head cold (oops, now you don't have a means to fend off that food poisoning --better get even more chemo, that'll solve it once and for all!)
Ironically, these groups are still overwhelmingly law-abiding (perhaps not counting those laws passed to ensnare as many as possible, like drug/weapons laws) and willingly, readily lend themselves to self defense when given the opportunity (what 'few' self defense stories you read about are frequently in bad neighborhoods in pro-gun areas)
Okay, all that explanation & background out of the way; how does this explain that anti-gun positions are inherently racist whereas pro-gun ones are inherently egalitarian?
-If you believe your personal group outside the ghetto/hood/skid row/poor area is more deserving of life, you seek to disarm them in the hope of making them too powerless to harm you personally. Turning them into something weaker than, less than, a free human being in modern America. Except for those who refuse to go along, and remain strong enough to plunder (and attract followers with their strength)
-If you believe all groups are equal in their claims to and need for human rights, you want them to be as protected from each other as you yourself can be from them. This means parity of firepower at the end of the day (which in reality means access to some form of half-decent handgun anyone can afford) in modern America. In this arrangement, when the criminal element attacks inside or outside the community, there is a very real threat of effective retaliation, which weakens their social standing (and numbers) considerably, greatly decreasing the allure of criminal gang life or the need to partake.
"What, do you want people running around the ghetto with guns all willy nilly?" --frequent refrain from gun banners, though usually at the very end of the discussion for obvious reasons. I've even heard "Do you want ghetto folk coming into your neighborhood with guns?" from time to time (which is the natural corollary to the first one. Lot of folks out there don't *hate* poor people or minorities they associate with poor people, but they just don't trust them with 600 year-old technology, either (or 10,000 year old technology in the case of places that ban slingshots & knives)
TCB
*The list goes further, as naturally the anti-gun narrative must eventually become 'post racial' if it is to ban guns for the entire population. But demonization of the same threatening minority poverty groups is still the primary driving factor.
