Rightbloggers Find the Cause of England's Riots: Gun Control and Black People

[DanTex]

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/rightbloggers_f_7.php

Riots broke out in London and other parts of England last week. The evident catalyst was the controversial killing by police of Mark Duggan; but, as with the Rodney King beating that sparked the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, it's unlikely that one small event could have caused so much fury and violence.

Some people thought the austerity program of the nation's Conservative leadership had finally pissed off enough young citizens to provoke street-level backlash, as had happened earlier this summer in Greece.

Rightbloggers? They obsessed on gun control and black people.

They certainly did...

[ileus]

1. hard to CC a mini14...

I love mine...I even wax the stock about once a year. If only it were more accurate....

[jpak]

3. It's accurate enough to kill dozens of Norwegian kids

yup

:thumbsdown:

[GreenStormCloud]

5. At close range any gun can do that.

He is wanting more precision to be able to hit targets at a longer range. Of course, we realize that you want to ban all gun completely.

[jpak]

7. But the ready availability of large capacity magazines makes it SO much easier

yup

[We_Have_A_Problem]

9. And another...

...completely pointless and irrelevant comment based in nothing but ignorance and fear.

[SteveM]

18. Several mags can do the same. Ask Cho, if he is still coherent. Yup.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. The standard magazine for it can be changed in a couple of seconds.

The VT killer made about 17 magazine changes.

[jpak]

26. Then why did the Norway moran and the Arizona moran use high cap mags?

clue - cuz they make the killing more efficient

yup

[gejohnston]

27. how would we know?

one is schizophrenic and the other is just a racist asshole. Ask them.

[Hoyt]

10. Why would one need to shoot someone "long-range?"

[ileus]

11. notice the word targets in his post.

I can get 2-3" groups at 100 with my mini....my AR's will almost shoot MOA at 100, with the right ammo they will. My 308 I can shoot MOA out to 300 yards.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. He said "hit targets" not "shoot people"... lots of people target shoot with rifles

and it's true that the ruger "mini" rifles aren't too accurate.

[ileus]

14. I've read the new mini's are much better than the pencil barrel ones like mine.

[SteveM]

19. Yeah, but for the controller/banner, hope springs eternal. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. I can think of a variety of reasons...

...however the comment was about targets, not people.

Feel free to once again misrepresent a poster's words since it makes you feel like you actually have a cogent argument.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Please quote me accurately. I said targets.

However, self-defense at longer ranges, while extremely rare is not unheard of.

[RSillsbee]

30. If I had to shoot someone I'd much rather it were at long range. NT

[spin]

32. It would entirely depend on the situation ...

In most cases self defense shooting occurs at extreme close range, but not all.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. And this has what to do with the OP?

Oh yeah - as usual, nothing.

Carry on...

[SteveM]

17. Correction: Accurate enough if you have a murderous thug using it. Yup.

[PavePusher]

2. That guy writes like iverglas.

hmmmmm.....

I'm not seeing where he linked to anyone saying the riotors were all racial minorities, although he seems to claim someone said it... did I miss something?

Edit: Disregard, I got to the second page. Bleh...

[gejohnston]

4. while the article does expose a lot of racism, antisemitism,

and just plain bullshit, guns seem to be a side note. At most, the links talk about people being caught in the middle being able to defend themselves.

My biggest disagreement with him is that he called Ted Nugent an intellectual.

[iverglas]

6. ah, he knows whereof he speaks

As ending all gun control is one of American conservatism's holy missions -- right up there with destroying Social Security -- the brethren declared that England was now so violence-wracked that the situation could only be reversed by the free circulation across Blighty of Saturday Night Specials and semi-automatics.

-- although it really is an insult to conservatives to use the word in this context. "Conservative" is a word with a time-honoured meaning, at least in the world outside US borders, and it doesn't really mean "foaming at the mouth right-wing".

As for the Ted Nugent comment:

"From London to Philadelphia to Milwaukee, goons are rioting in the streets... The shiftless, looting goons and their liberal allies think rich people should be taxed more, and more economic advantages must be provided to largely uneducated, unskilled, lazy, incompetent goons," said conservative intellectual Ted Nugent.

-- I would take that in the first instance as an intentionally humorous oxymoron: "military intelligence", "conservative intellectual" (with my same caveat about "conservative", although it might suit the purpose here).

Or it could just be that dry Brit wit, the sort of thing that gets me into trouble, indeed, among those who live in a cultural context where it isn't oft encountered so it is not got, or where claiming not to get it is credible.

This is pretty amusing:

Murray didn't explain how precisely what linked last week's English riots to those of the American 60s, but he did judge that the rioters had "easy access to credit over the past decade or so," and were now "looking to take for free what they previously got for nominal sums."

-- and it does reflect some significant segments of popular opinion in the pool that the right wing goes fishing in: that the rioters were spoiled, "entitled", lazy products of the "benefits culture".

Easy access to credit for undereducated, unemployed minority youth. Yeah. Well, their parents probably did buy the television on the rent-to-own plan, and end up paying double what it was worth by the time it was obsolete ...

[SteveM]

16. Ah, such dispassionate coverage by the "Voice:"

"But in recent years violent crime has risen in the UK. As ending all gun control is one of American conservatism's holy missions -- right up there with destroying Social Security -- the brethren declared that England was now so violence-wracked that the situation could only be reversed by the free circulation across Blighty of Saturday Night Specials and semi-automatics."

No wonder gun-controller/banner propagandist arguments sound so familiar: They get 'em from the Village Vice:

(1) "...ending all gun control is one of American conservatism's holy missions --";
(2) "...the situation could only be reversed by the free circulation across Blighty of Saturday Night Specials and semi-automatics..."

My goodness. Goes beyond straw to become Wicker Man (filmed in the British Isles, I believe).

BTW, for a publication so sensitive to the affairs of black people, they should refrain from using the term Saturday Night Special:

In his book Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, civil rights attorney and gun scholar Don Kates found racial overtones in the focus on the Saturday Night Special<14> ("niggertown Saturday night special"). Even gun control advocate Robert Sherrill claimed: "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks."<15>

and...

Roy Innis, president of the activist group Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), said "To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." (CORE filed as an amicus curiae in a 1985 suit challenging Maryland's Saturday night special/low-caliber handgun ban.<4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special.

[DanTex]

21. Oh lordy... loosen up a bit.

It was a good piece, you can admit it. Intelligently exposing right-wing nutjobbery with the right amount of irony and wit.

[SteveM]

29. I read it. It wasn't a good piece. But some people like sledgehammer style...

Because of the irony(y).

[iverglas]

25. with your bare face hanging out

you cite ROY INNIS.

Have you no shame????

:rofl:

ROY INNIS is African-American in its worst form (kinda like Phyllis Shlafly is female in its worst form, etc.). Corrupt, right-wing, nasty.

Where'd that thread go about how nobody can ever seem to find a progressive voice in their corner?


From your wiki link:

Low cost and high availability make them attractive to low-income buyers despite their shortcomings.

Sorta like how dangerous low-paid jobs are attractive to the unemployed despite their shortcomings, eh?

Occupational health and safety standards and minimum wages being, of course, a plot to prevent (disproportionately minority / immigrant) unskilled workers from earning a living.

Or so say the right wing / loonytarians, anyhow. There's even an African-American economist on that side. Perhaps you've heard of Thomas Sowell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jv1Zae0sgo

He may come in handy sometime.


Meanwhile, that blasted dimwitted NAACP ...

In 2003, the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun manufacturers for creating what it called a "public nuisance" through the "negligent marketing" of handguns, which included models commonly described as Saturday Night Specials. The suit alleged that handgun manufacturers and distributors were guilty of marketing guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

You won't remember this tale:
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x80330
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=64027

Nobody hereabouts seemed to anxious to own one of those products ...

[SteveM]

28. With what of your's hanging out?....

Maybe you need a little less -- what was that? Snarkiness? -- in dealing with your "stuff."

"ROY INNIS is African-American in its worst form (kinda like Phyllis Shlafly is female in its worst form, etc.). Corrupt, right-wing, nasty."

Of course you don't want to see the message -- you just wanna kill the messenger.

"Where'd that thread go about how nobody can ever seem to find a progressive voice in their corner?"

You posted it. Maybe it's in that thing hangin' out. I could care less.

"'Low cost and high availability make them attractive to low-income buyers despite their shortcomings.'


"Sorta like how dangerous low-paid jobs are attractive to the unemployed despite their shortcomings, eh?

Occupational health and safety standards and minimum wages being, of course, a plot to prevent (disproportionately minority / immigrant) unskilled workers from earning a living."

Uh, more of your circular reasoning or perhaps self-fulfilling prophecy. Listen up. Again:
If you make the choice to purchase a firearm for self-defense, and the ruling authorities (evidently those stalwarts of OSHA standards, Jim Crow Legislators) say you must purchase high-quality and expensive guns (by THEIR standards, of course), then you either have NO gun, or you must drain your budget for your OSHA/Jim Crow types' definition of high quality. I would say that you miss the point again, but no. You realize exactly what those laws are about, but even if you have to discriminate against blacks to disarm at least a portion of the population, what the hey? You're a gun-controller.

You should realize that MLK applied for a concealed-carry in Birmingham in 1955, immediately after his house was bombed. Guess what happened?

"Meanwhile, that blasted dimwitted NAACP ...

In 2003, the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun manufacturers for creating what it called a "public nuisance" through the "negligent marketing" of handguns, which included models commonly described as Saturday Night Specials. The suit alleged that handgun manufacturers and distributors were guilty of marketing guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods."

Often described as the most conservative of the black civil rights organizations, it took the NAACP until last month to come out against the War on Drugs (still, in rather unspecific terms). If you consider this group "liberal" or "progressive," you are fixated with times past, if those times were ever there; I mean MLK wasn't a member.

[iverglas]

33. shoved up the barrel of your gun

You realize exactly what those laws are about, but even if you have to discriminate against blacks to disarm at least a portion of the population, what the hey? You're a gun-controller.

is what you can arrange for your not at all veiled allegations of racism on my part to be.

I'm in Canada. Race is a minor factor in the history of this country. The one element of that history where what you might call race is a factor, and obviously a not insignificant one, is relations with the First Nations, the issue being not race but colonialism and imperialism, of course.

The First Nations of Canada have CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES of treaty and aboriginal rights -- which include hunting rights -- and have special provisions in certain firearms regulations allowing them greater leeway than other Canadians.

Firearms control in Canada HAS NO RACIAL ELEMENT what so fucking ever.

The fact that YOUR SOCIETY is racist is not and has never been an argument AGAINST FIREARMS CONTROL.

The fact that dangerous, badly made handguns are attractive to the poor is not an argument against prohibiting their sale.

I pointed out that the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT as yours is made against occupational health and safety standards and minimum wage laws by RIGHT WING economists and other right wing flotsam and jetsam -- including African Americans.

This isn't "circular argument" (what the fuck???). It is demonstrating that some people will say ANYTHING to protect their own interests, including screeching "racist!" at people who are in fact the ones advocating policies that disproportionately BENEFIT the victims of racism because the victims of racism are the ones disproportinately HARMED in the absence of those policies.

The modern "gun rights" movement arose out of the racist backlash to the civil rights movement.

We all know it.

it took the NAACP until last month to come out against the War on Drugs (still, in rather unspecific terms)

Google this if you like -- I have ALWAYS said that drug policy is something that reasonable people of goodwill can differ on (like many things). Anyone with a brain knows the harm the drugs in question do to individuals and a society (and we are not talking cannabis) -- the drugs, not wars on drugs. Drugs. Everybody knows that those problems will not be solved by legalizing the drugs. Everybody knows that legalizing something does not mean there is never again going to be organized crime involvement in it, or violence and other social harms associated with it. This is not a set of mathematical equations: legalize drugs = all good things happen, criminalize drugs = all bad things happen.

I don't use drug policy as a litmus test when assessing an individual or organization. If I did, and I lived in the US, I'd be voting Libertarian or some such nauseating thing.

Often described as the most conservative of the black civil rights organizations, it took the NAACP ...

Let's not play equivocation. Roy Innis and CORE are hard-core RIGHT-WING. "Conservative" can mean as little as "slow to change". "Conservative" as compared to the Panthers? You betcha. As compared to CORE? No comparison. CORE is right-wing and corrupt. Not even on the same axis.

Find me something here that qualifies as right-wing:
http://www.naacp.org/content/main
or even "conservative".

"They don't serve my interests" is not equal to "conservative".

[spin]

31. It could be argued that inexpensive handguns ...

often described as "Saturday Night Specials" provide a opportunity for the poor to have a method of self defense in the violent neighborhoods they often live in.

Economic Class

Because the price of a firearm can determine who is able to buy it, the elimination of inexpensive firearms could have a direct effect upon those of lesser means. Roy Innis, president of the activist group Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), said "To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." (CORE filed as an amicus curiae in a 1985 suit challenging Maryland's Saturday night special/low-caliber handgun ban.<4>) The Wright and Rossi evaluation of the National Institute of Justice study (p. 238) concluded: "The people most likely to be deterred from acquiring a handgun by exceptionally high prices or by the nonavailability of certain kinds of handguns are not felons intent on arming themselves for criminal purposes (who can, if all else fails, steal the handgun they want), but rather poor people who have decided they need a gun to protect themselves against the felons but who find that the cheapest gun in the market costs more than they can afford to pay."<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

Yes I know that I used a quote from, God forbid, Roy Innis.

Perhaps he is indeed as you describe:

ROY INNIS is African-American in its worst form (kinda like Phyllis Shlafly is female in its worst form, etc.). Corrupt, right-wing, nasty.


But he may be making a valid point. Even a fool may make a brilliant statement occasionally. You do have a habit of attacking the messenger and totally disregarding the message.

Honest but poor individuals may not be able to afford an expensive handgun for self defense. However, they may well have far more reason to own one than the rich person who lives in a gated community with security who can afford to drop a large amount of cash on the counter to purchase a high quality and very expensive handgun.

And inexpensive handguns are not necessarily unsafe or unreliable.

Despite the inexpensive manufacture of "Saturday night specials", they are manufactured to certain quality standards to ensure they are not dangerous to the shooter when used correctly. Even prolific gun critic Robert Sherrill admitted he found no instance where a user was killed or even seriously injured by failure of a Saturday Night Special.<15> Firearms sold in most countries are required to pass certain safety tests, particularly a proof test consisting of firing a special high pressure round (proof load) which far exceeds the European C.I.P. or U.S. SAAMI pressure maximum for the round (see internal ballistics). However, the United States Government does not require firearm manufacturers in the United States to proof test their barrels, although most U.S. makers do exceed proof standards simply to avoid product liability lawsuits. If there is any weakness in the firearm, then the proof load should damage or destroy the firearm; if it passes the proof test, that is considered "proof" that the individual firearm has safe operating margins and receives a proof mark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

I carry what some may consider a Saturday Night Special, a S&W Model 642 .38+P snub nosed revolver. It's fairly inexpensive at approximately $360 new. It's an excellent weapon for CCW and also can be a home defense weapon. I've owned it for probably 20 years and have fired thousand of rounds through it. I have never had a malfunction. It's an extremely reliable firearm but not a target handgun. It's very accurate, but the sights and the sight radius limit the user's ability for long range shooting. Long range shooting is usually unnecessary for self defense.

The first handgun I ever bought was a used Rohn RG .38 special revolver. I was very poor at the time and wanted a weapon for my wife to use to defend herself as the neighborhood we lived in had reports of prowlers. I worked on the night shift and she was frightened because of the rumors.



My wife and I took the revolver to the range and practiced with it. It worked fine and never malfunctioned during probably 1000 rounds but we had a hard time hitting the target at 25 yards. (I attribute that more to the fact that we had no idea of how to shoot a handgun, more than the firearm's accuracy.) I wasn't overly concerned as self defense occurs WELL within 25 yards. Today this revolver might set you back $150 dollars or less. It was and would be a good firearm for home defense for a person who lacked the funds to purchase a better handgun.

I've seen very expensive handguns which would make far less reliable home defense weapons than that Rohn .38. Every time my wife and I pulled the trigger it made a loud noise. Some expensive firearms, especially semi-auto pistols often jam. That is something you hope to avoid if your life or health depends on how reliable your firearm is.

[iverglas]

34. you see the title of this thread?

And still all you or anybody else can come up with is Roy Innis?

Yes, yes, yes -- even a stopped clock.

But how come all the clocks that actually work have never told that particular time?

"To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." - Innis

Do you not find that statement bizarre and appallingly dishonest in the extreme?

Putting a money test on getting a gun -- racism in its worst form?? It's kind of like saying that barring women from golf courses is racism in its worst form. Yes, it is, so don't bother with the "self-defence!!!!!!" noise.

Honest but poor individuals may not be able to afford an expensive handgun for self defense. However, they may well have far more reason to own one than the rich person who lives in a gated community with security who can afford to drop a large amount of cash on the counter to purchase a high quality and very expensive handgun.

Is that who was buying these Saturday Night Specials? Is that what was being done with them? In some relatively modern time within living memory?

Is that who would buy them now? Where is the outpouring of demands from the low-income African American community for access to cheap crappy handguns?

Check out the "Discussion" page, which I had already read in full, on the wiki article you cite.

Overrun by gun militants though that page is, the bias in the article is clearly highlighted, and why that "article" is allowed to stand without a big red warning about it being a piece of propaganda is beyond me.

[spin]

37. NO!!! I do not find the statement Roy Innus made bizarre in the least ...

Did you even read my post?

I mentioned that once when I had very little money but my wife was afraid because of reports of a prowler in my neighborhood. I bought a cheap but reliable used revolver that could be described as a Saturday Night Special and took her to the range to teach both myself and her how to shoot this weapon. Fortunately she never had occasion to use it while I was working the night shift. I can't remember what I paid for this firearm but it probably was around $20 or $30 by in today's money. Between us we probably fired at least 1000 rounds through it without a single malfunction.

We never misused this weapon for any criminal purpose. Just because a poor but honest person owns a handgun for self defense does not mean that they will misuse it to rob, rape or pillage. Such a view could easily be considered elitist or racist.

It wasn't the greatest handgun I have ever owned but it was probably as effectively accurate and reliable as the small snub nosed inexpensive revolver that I currently own for home self defense and concealed carry which once again could be called a Saturday Night Special. It may have been inexpensive, but it was very reliable. My wife would have been able to have an excellent chance to defend herself using it if she had confronted an intruder invading our mobile home (trailer). I guess you might call us trailer trash but we were young and working to improve our lives. You have to start out somewhere and when you have little money or poor parents it is often near the bottom.

A handgun does not have to cost a fortune to be an adequate weapon for self defense, and handguns that do cost a thick wad of cash may not be a good choice as a defensive weapon. Often the impressive and highly reviewed semi-auto handgun you buy for many hundreds of dollars may prove to be a jam-o-matic on the range whereas the inexpensive used revolver which the elite may call a Saturday Night Special might never fail.

Of course, you have to do some research on the firearm you decide to buy. And even after that you have to take every firearm that you might depend on using to defend your life or your health to the range to find out if it is totally reliable with the ammo you intend to use in it.

I understand your Canadian dislike of handguns. You live in a different society with different rules. It may or may not be superior to the society in the United States with its love of a gun culture but let me assure you, I have absolutely no desire to adopt your firearms laws in my nation. Many Americans, and probably the overwhelming majority, agree with me. You have your laws and to me they are your business. I don't mind your commenting on our laws, but you have no vote in what we do.

[iverglas]

38. "We never misused this weapon for any criminal purpose."

Actually, you never used it for any purpose but having fun, from what I gather.

I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to help your argument.

There was a prowler in the neighbourhood ... so I needed a gun ... No ...

Sorry. Nobody needs a gun. Period.

[spin]

39. That is your opinion ...

I don't agree with the idea that I can afford to ignore potential danger. I prefer to make preparations, which I did.'

It was fortunate that the firearm was not necessary. Had it been, my wife would have had the ability to defend herself.

No harm resulted from anyone because of my decision.

[Starboard Tack]

20. Great post Dan . K&R

[DU GrovelBot]

24. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[iverglas]

35. Got one from Soviet Canuckistan for you

The Toronto Sun is right-wing enough -- aimed at the really stupid people -- and now there's a new television station, affectionately known as Fox News North, for the even stupider. ;)

http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/28635/charles-adler-sun-tv-news-show/

Charles Adler Joins Sun TV News for Primetime Show
Sep. 15, 2010

reader comment: Sam Katz (mayor of Winnipeg) used to say he was not a conservative. He’s right. He’s an ultra right wing ideological extremist tea party libertarian otherwise known as the Conservative party of Canada. His presence with (Charles) Adler and Lavoie pretty much connects the dots.

With that intro:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/11/could-guns-help-keep-the-peace

Could guns help keep the peace?
By Charles Adler ,QMI Agency

I received a call on my Corus Radio show this week from a fellow named Sean. He said he had an M16 rifle, the U.S. military's weapon of choice.

As he was watching the riots in London, he was fantasizing about being up in a tower and shooting the very first person that tries to loot a store. Sean said he thought if he could do that, there would instantly be some self-correcting behaviour and the looting would come to an end.

He wanted to know whether I ever fantasized about being what he called the "social janitor," the guy who goes into the human sewer and cleans things up. I told him when I see the news clips out of London, I naturally think about Charles Bronson and a scene from Death Wish II.

Phew ... sound familiar at all? ;)

Fast forward from New York City in the 70s and 80s to London, England this week. While I am not asking for people to fulfill Sean's fantasy of becoming social janitors and climbing on rooftops to pick off thugs and looters, I do honestly wonder what would have happened had the shopkeepers been armed.

I am wondering whether there might have been some quick and orderly self-correcting behaviour. I'm even wondering if the scumbags who did the looting would have dared to do it if they felt the people who own those small business establishments were trained in firearms.

And it goes on with the obligatory paragraph about Korean shop owners in LA, and adds the novel twist of how this could never happen in Switzerland ...


Yes, we have them too.

Oh, and I doubt that "Sean" had an M16 legally as he'd need a special kind of licence for that ... or that he had an M16 ...

[DanTex]

36. "fantasizing about being up in a tower and shooting the very first person that tries to loot"

Ah, yes, the violence fetish...

Yes, we have them too.
Adler and "Sean" would fit right in with the NRA crowd here, although, at least in Texas, people try to avoid the "shooting people from a tower" image with their killing fantasies...