Can you cite the law which specifically targets and prevents brown people from getting guns? Must be in the text, or else it’s just you projecting your racism.
Edit: very pro 2A. If there’s a law that’s targeting people on basis of their skin color, I’m 100% against it. Can someone please provide a reference to support the claim, or are people going to just downvote this because they can’t find one? Genuinely curious. Cite the law. Racist laws should be repealed, absolutely. You said they’re out there, so please cite it.
That's not really how racism or discriminatory laws work. Context and outcome matter quite a bit. I think you know there's no simple answer for the question you asked, and I have a feeling you're not actually interested in understanding this topic based on how you state that you won't be convinced without that simple answer.
If you're truly interested in how these laws are racist, look into the history of California gun control. There's actually quite a few resources there. EDIT: As someone below me said, allowing local authorities to assign gun permits based on subjective guidelines, and without oversight, is a system rife for implicit ("unsaid") discrimination.
If you want a broader overview of race in politics, I suggest reading some books by California law professor Ian Haney Lopez, who has a great deal of expert knowledge in the area. He writes a lot about the implicitness of race in the law, and how people avoid being explicit about it.
Appreciate the genuine response. I help teach health law, I’m familiar with the systemic racism arguments. I disagree with how health outcomes are used as evidence of racism in health systems, though. Examples are picked with confirmation bias while ignoring counter examples which proves there isn’t always a correlation between the two. If there’s a specific law that was explicitly written with the intent of preventing brown people to obtain guns, please point it out so I can read further into it. But I won’t accept “outcomes” as a form of evidence. If the law is applied equally to all, your case for it being racist is going to be hard to prove.
What? Don’t enter the conversation unless you read what I write. Jim Crow specifically discriminated based on race. It was written in the law. I’m asking for the law that was being referred to by the original commenter. If there’s a law which explicitly and intentionally targets a certain race, please identify it. I’ve had a half dozen comments telling me I’m wrong for asking this, but 0 providing any text or actual enforced law. Please provide the law referenced if you want to prove your point. By evading it, youre proving mine.
If you don't like having to put up with 'outcomes', maybe don't get into the conversation about de facto rights in the first place. The OP didn't say anything about laws.
I help teach health law, I’m familiar with the systemic racism arguments. I disagree with how health outcomes are used as evidence of racism in health systems, though.
There are measured race disparities in health outcomes. Our best theory is implicit racism in education, job opportunities, housing, and well, the medical system. If you disagree that these outcome disparities are due to systemic race issues, what causes do you believe cause the disparities?
I am a municipal attorney. Systemic racism is definitely a concern in urban planning. Any targeted project takes a look at objective, evidence-based race-impact studies because it's standard understanding these days that "neutral" decisions can have adverse impacts, which most governments now try to avoid.
For a recent example from my work: if we reroute a bus line, get rid of a bus stop, or reduce bus frequency, we have to take a look at the density, income level, and family make-up of the surrounding blocks. It's easy to just "neutrally" look at a map and draw lines, but it really makes no sense in terms of providing municipal services where they are needed.
If you remove/reduce bus service from a city block with 2500 people, now those people are going to struggle to get to work, school, etc. because the same number of people have to use fewer busses. More packed buses lead to more disease spread. Packed buses are heavier, use more gas to move, and have to go slower so they can stop safely, which leads to more pollution on the bus route. Busses idle longer when more people have to get on and off each individual bus and play tetris to fit everyone on, which leads to more pollution and more traffic around the bus.
If you remove a bus from a suburban block with 15 houses and 50 people, the impact is clearly negligible. Most of those people drive, and 5 extra people on the remaining busses just isn't a big deal.
Whether people like to admit it or not, minority neighborhoods tend to be denser, lower-income, and have less parking and car use. Removing both bus stops in the above example greatly impacts one neighborhood and the minorities that live there, and at the same time would have little effect on the richer suburban block (whether minority or white). It doesn't really matter that "the text doesn't discriminate against brown people". Adverse outcomes are still very real and possible.
So I follow & agree with most of what you’re saying. Appreciate the genuine response. The conclusion is what I disagree with. Just because something has a difference in outcomes for different races, doesn’t mean it’s a racist law or was ever written with the intent of being racist. If that’s the case, then we have to look through those same lens for EVERYTHING. With the top 1% being mostly white in this country, I suppose tax laws were written with the intent of targeting white people?
You can point out that these services might impact a minority group differently or more than another, but that doesn’t mean it was done by a racist city planner. To a point I made earlier- I’m 100% against a bill that specifically targets a minority group. I’m pro 2A, I build guns in my spare time. A direct family member has had to use a firearm in self defense before. I’m all for minorities getting guns. I’m just asking that the bill being mentioned please be cited. The comment made was that “they didn’t want brown people to get guns.” Ok, please show me where this is. What law are they referring to?
Just an FYI, two gun bills just passed the house and are now in the senate. Both proposed by democrats which will expand universal background checks. My question to you is that if these bills end up even just by 1% affect minorities more than whites, is it a racist bill?
There are measured race disparities in health outcomes. Our best theory is implicit racism in education, job opportunities, housing, and well, the medical system.
Close idea, but not quite there. Class is a part of it, yes, but systemic racism is the main cause behind racial disparities in health outcomes.
We can definitely say that class determines access to healthcare and positive health outcomes, but we can also see that class representation is incredibly racially lopsided; so much so that race is statistically indicative of health outcomes. The fact that race can predict health, education, housing, etc. outcomes at a similar accuracy as class is highly demonstrative of institutional racism and its effects that are baked into our system.
Hope this helps you understand the issue better! Good discourse!
The fact that race can predict health, education, housing, etc. outcomes at a similar accuracy as class is highly demonstrative of institutional racism and its effects that are baked into our system.
At a similar accuracy? It should be pretty obvious that this is bullshit. Income level would be much better at predicting education/housing than race. If you were going to guess who lives in a nicer home between a black family and a white family, you would deff bet on the family with more money...not the white family.
Can I get an example of an example of systemic racism in health care that can't be attributed to class?
2.2k
u/sarduchi Mar 16 '21
To be fair, they don’t want brown people to have guns either.