Gun Rights is Racist, According to Chris Ingraham at WaPo

As if we didn’t have enough steaming piles of excrement coming from the media today, the WaPo has to take today’s cake:

Alexandra Filindra and Noah J. Kaplan found that whites were significantly less likely to support gun control measures when they had recently looked at pictures of black people, than when they had looked at pictures of white people.

Are you effin’ kidding me? This is really such excrement, I can only respond with this dank meme:



25 thoughts on “Gun Rights is Racist, According to Chris Ingraham at WaPo”

  1. So when a white person sees a black person, they think of the civil rights movement and think black folks (and everyone else) have the right to protect themselves. When white people see other white people, the civil rights connection is less likely to be made. Or am I missing something here…

    1. That was what I thought too. I had to go read the article to finally figure out what the ‘racist’ angle was.

  2. Ingraham is a hack. I once pointed out a factual error in one of his articles and he never bothered to correct it.

  3. Even outside of it coming from the Univ of Chicago and people w/ a long history of making anti-gun ‘research’, they even set the terms to make those likely to support firearm rights automatically defined as ‘racist’.

    Box of ammo it was funded through the Joyce’s.

    1. Please! It didn’t come from the University of Chicago. It came from the University of Illinois at Chicago which is a whole different story.

      One is respected institution with a long history, ultra competitive admissions, etc. The other is an urban commuter school that takes 75% of those that apply.

      Both Filindra and Kaplan are political scientists. From reading Ms. Filindra’s list of publications and presented papers, it looks like she specializes in racial grievances with a strong emphasis on illegal aliens. Mr. Kaplan, if I read his CV correctly, was turned down for tenure at the University of Houston and is now a visiting assistant professor at UIC. In other words, he’s starting at the bottom again.

  4. …whites were significantly less likely to support gun control measures when they had recently looked at pictures of black people, than when they had looked at pictures of white people.

    Pictures of black people doing what?

    Pictures of white people doing what?

    Context matters.

    Were they pictures of [hashtag]BlackLivesMatter “protests”, followed by pictures of white folks enjoying some good BBQ? Do you suppose the outcome might be different between seeing that imagery and seeing pictures of smiling black families, followed by pictures of a KKK rally?

    Don’t oversimplify it into “black” vs. “white”. Context matters.

    1. This was my thoughts exactly. I would *really* like to see the pictures used in this study.

      When Governor Reagan signed gun control in California due to activities of the Black Panthers, it wasn’t because the Black Panthers went to the State Capitol. It was because they went to the State Capitol with their arms prominently displayed.

      If the Weather Underground, in all their white glory, did the same thing, is there any doubt that Governor Reagan would have passed the same law?

      (And this is one reason why we need to be careful as gun rights activists. The Black Panthers did what they did to show their support for the Second Amendment…)

    2. Now that I’ve looked at the article itself, another thing occurred to me: only white people were questioned about gun rights.

      What would the experiment have been like, had they also had a good sample of blacks, and other races and ethnicities? It’s entirely possible that the effect would have been universal…which might indicate that the pictures of “whites” were of families holding their newborn baby, and “blacks” were gang-bangers pointing guns at the cameras….

      (One commenter at the story provided links to two such pictures, and clicking on them really brings home the difference in feelings you get from either picture; and it’s easy to see how reversing the races would not reverse the effects of the pictures!)

  5. As a follow-up: How did black respondents’ support for “gun control” change when seeing those same images?

    What, they didn’t check that? They only asked white people their opinions?


  6. Apropos to little, when did “dank” become a synonym for… actually I don’t even know what it’s supposed to mean in this case. Cool? Hip? Trendy? Potent?

    1. A adjective to describe the strong smell of pungent marijuana, which apparently is good, therefore anything called “dank” is “good, quality, cool, etc…”

  7. It’s well known that people–not just white people–default to getting their guard up when they see others who don’t appear to be like themselves. So even if the pictures were of normally-dressed black people doing normal everyday things, the study can’t have developed any information that would be the least bit interesting to science. It’s almost certainly a hackjob designed to get a headline-worthy result. Did Bloomberg pay for it?

    Something else that’s well known, by the way, is that gun control was invented in the 50s and 60s with the explicit aim of disarming black people during the civil rights era.

  8. Wait, so they are saying that on the hot button topic of gun control (which historically is extremely difficult to change one’s mind on)- they were able to alter opinions by showing flash cards with pictures of people’s faces?

  9. Ahhh, good old “priming” studies. Utterly meaningless, but so easy to do that you can get your undergraduates to do hundreds of them at less cost than a single real study.
    No wonder they became such a fad.

  10. The paper’s methodology section explicitly states that the survey group was self-selected (always a no-no from a scientific standpoint) and not economically representative of the white population in the USA (poorer than average). Garbage In, Garbage Out

  11. Racism?

    Wow, it’s bad enough how often the gun-control cultists rely upon appeals to scientism. And it’s bad enough how often that scientism is based upon studies from “social science”.

    But now the gun-control cultists are really scraping the bottom of the scientism barrel to accuse gun-rights supporters of racism.

    However, such an amazingly ludicrous attempt to poison the well of public debate demonstrates how weak the enemy is.

    in fact, I suspect the editorial isn’t aimed at persuading neutral or pro-gun people as much as it is intended to bolster the flagging morale of the anti-gunners. Our side is so blindingly true, so obviously correct, so clearly winning, that the anti-gunners have to demonize us as evil racists.

  12. The charge of racism is so overused it becomes a badge of honor. I have heard that the R for republican means racist. Such BS.

    The Chalkening has been so much fun for trolling the hyper sensitive snowflakes.

Comments are closed.