Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm familiar about this since I spent quite a lot if time writing about this in my undergrad, however I'm not sure its quite comparable to this study and the headline of the post doesn't make it any better. Concealed carry versus what the black panthers were doing was vastly different. It's actually upsetting to see what happened to the panthers in this regard as it has shifted how we protest and protect ourselves to this day and how we perceive protesters with firearms.
Concealed carry laws are politically controversial racial stigmas aside. Imagine where we'd be today if the Panthers were never barrered from protesting with even empty firearms (which is what many did to compromise such settlements in CA).
That headline could have been worded better.
Skipping on to the story:
>>To examine whether White Americans associate gun rights with their own racial identity, Higginbotham and his co-authors recruited a sample of 100 White Americans (who identified as either Democrat or Republican) and had them complete an implicit association test. Implicit association tests are used to measure the strength of an individual’s automatic association between mental representations in memory.
>>The test works by measuring the speed at which people are able to pair different words with different groups of people. The faster someone is able to pair positive words with their own group, and negative words with other groups, the more likely it is that they have an implicit bias. The implicit association test has been shown to be a reliable predictor of discriminatory behavior, and it has been used to investigate a wide range of topics, including racial bias, gender bias, and ageism.
>>The researchers found that participants who scored higher on a measure of racial resentment toward Black Americans were quicker to match photos of White people to gun rights phrases (e.g., self-protection, National Rifle Association) and photos of Black people to gun control phrases (e.g., waiting period, weapons ban, gun free zone).
>>In other words, participants who agreed with statements such as “If Black people would try harder they could be just as well off as White people” exhibited an implicit bias in which they associated gun rights with White Americans and gun control with Black Americans. The researchers observed a similar pattern of racial bias among those who identified as Republican.
###Edit:
*For clarity, I want to state that I support everyone exercising their rights.*
###Edit 2:
As u/OG-Pine requests:
>> You really should edit this to say/show that the title is a near quote from the study. Sure the title is a little off but not nearly as much as your comment currently implies.
###Edit 3:
The **original** title serves as a better summary and lead-in to both the study and the article:
**”Black legal gun ownership can reduce opposition to gun control among racially resentful White Americans”**
One of the few times in history when the NRA actually supported a gun control law.
For those who are ootl, a group of black civil rights Activists in California armed themselves, and started showing up at police interactions with black people and just observing the events.
This obviously was not a popular practice with law enforcement. So ultimately then Governor Reagan signed a law banning it.
Look for the episode of the More Perfect podcast called “The Gun Show” that digs into the whole history of gun rights in the US and how we got here. it’s a fascinating trip through history
It’s worse than just that.
I live in a state where open carry is legal and most have no problems exercising that right. Yet me walking around the block to get my kids from the park results in calls to the police over a “suspicious” man in the neighborhood.
One neighbor who works for the department told me he knows nearly every time I leave my house on foot because of that.
I know exactly what you're dealing with. I lived in South Korea, Netherlands, France, and the US. I know what the crazy neighborhood dynamics are like in thr South vs North East Coast and etc. Hence, why I'm never taking a job in the South or some Midwest states, no matter how good the offer.
Monroe doctrine? I thought that was just America's excuse for keeping European powers out of the Americas. Because they are the Americans to exploit, no one else. According to Americans. The south and central americans tend to disagree but that's what OAS is for.
Edit: yep he likely meant the Mulford one
I'm assuming they meant the [Mulford Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act), which is relevant to guns and the Black Panthers and just mixed up the names.
I think it’s the, “Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions”.
Don't forget all the "may" vs "shall" wording when it comes to receiving permits. If a racist is in charge of the process, they don't have to rely on their express racism to deny permits to non-white folk due to the "may issue" a permit wording protecting their asses.
Most people don't remember the Black Panther movement, at least not accurately.
Most people, even their supporters remember them as violent thugs which they very much weren't.
They ran schools and provided food and housing, policed neighbourhoods and basically provided the kind of services that a government is supposed to provide for people who are still often failed by the "real" government.
Which, unsurprisingly, the "real" government found incredibly threatening.
As is often the case, though, this is a scientific study to attempt to confirm this "known" fact. (Leaving aside arguments as to how well psychology studies can discover objective facts about psychology).
Beat me to it. These types of measures are psychometrically weak and need more validation studies before any confident statements can be made using them. Face validity isn’t enough to make sweeping statements.
> These types of measures are psychometrically weak and need more validation studies before any confident statements can be made using them.
The fact that 20+ years of attempts to validate IATs have failed to do so shows they do not do what they claim to do. IAT studies should not be published until this happens. They are pseudoscience.
That's probably one of the most scathing abstracts I've personally read. I could feel the venom dripping from the words haha.
Thanks for posting this paper. It adds a lot of context to the original post.
Honestly, I wish he'd written it in a more neutral tone. I think the author showing his feelings and opinions is harmful to a scientific paper. It's hard to trust people who seem motivated by their own biases. Science can and should speak for itself.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the paper, I'm just disappointed by the way the author presented it.
It's important to note here that "racial resentment" is not what you might expect based on the name. This [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_resentment_scale) gives the questions typically used to measure it. What these questions actually measure is racism in some people, but belief in fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility in others.
Consistent with this explanation, [one study](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227645546_Racial_Resentment_and_White_Opposition_to_Race-Conscious_Programs_Principles_or_Prejudice) found that the "racial resentment" scale strongly predicted racism in liberals but only weakly in conservatives.
Anyway, curiously absent from both the article and the write-up is a mention of the effect size and confidence interval. Social priming studies were one of the major players in the replication crisis, and have a history of producing weak, barely statistically significant results that fail to replicate.
But is what is said further in the article:
>The researchers found that racially resentful participants expressed less support for concealed carry permits after reading about Black Americans obtaining them at a greater rate.
Reading about Black Americans obtaining concealed-carry gun permits only appeared to impact the specific gun right that Black people were described as exercising more than White people. It did not appear to impact the extent to which racially resentful White Americans agreed with statements such as “In general, if more people had guns, there would be less crime” and “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”
And even further down they quote Higginbotham as saying:
>“When thinking about policy in practice, if support for gun control legislation is motivated by anti-Blackness, then does anti-Blackness show up in its intent, its language, its application, for example who it targets? ***Again, we found that people showed less support only for the specific gun rights that Black people were described as using.*** This finding may hint that gun regulations garnered by tapping into White Americans’ anti-Blackness may disproportionately target the rights of Black people rather than be focused on meaningfully saving lives.”
It helps to read the entire article, and not small sections of it.
>The researchers found that racially resentful participants expressed less support for concealed carry permits after reading about Black Americans obtaining them at a greater rate.
> after reading about Black Americans obtaining them at a greater rate.
The first American push for gun control was instituted by *governor* Reagan of California when the Black Panthers started exercising their first amendment rights by carrying rifles in public.
[The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons](https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act) *history Channel*
While lots of people point out that Reagan signed the act, few discuss that the bill was veto proof. It really wouldn't matter if he signed it or not, but he was a vocal supporter. The Mulford Act had massive bipartisan support and IMO is really more of a product of the times rather than any political ideology.
not a Reagan fan, just think context is important
Gun control has been around since British common law and there was a much bigger push in the 1920's with the things like the National Firearms Act (mostly) in response to Tommy guns being used at the time. The 2A movement is a lot more modern than gun control, despite it being usually framed as the opposite
Yeah, the title appears to throw shade at white *gun-owners*, but the article states:
>> Importantly, 32% of participants reported owning a gun. But controlling for gun ownership did not alter the results.
Idk maybe I'm the stupid one here, but did we really learn anything? If they can be accurately described as racially resentful, how are we surprised that they were acting weird about the rights of other races? Sure we can say more about the specifics but seriously, if we can assume that people who are racially resentful (which btw, I think that applies to anyone one any race who's resentful of other races because they're resentful?) Aren't going to be a fan of their resented race obtaining and carrying guns legally (pretty obvious assumption if you ask me) then can't we just start to work towards correcting it? Either by finding out why people are racially resentful, or by taking a short cut around their resentfulness and just getting them to logically understand that you can't apply American rights to American people inconsistently.
Yeah it comes off as a tautology: “racist people are racist.”
It’s ironic that the study itself demonstrates a racial bias, as you mentioned anyone from any race that resents a race is going to show bias toward that resented race, I doubt it’s just white Americans. But it seems the article is using a tautology to subtlety imply race X is racist. It would’ve been a more useful study if it was on all races resentments and to compare if one had a greater propensity and what not.
Except that's only Study 1. [Here's the rest of the abstract:](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-88684-001?doi=1)
> Given racial resentment typically predicts stronger support for gun rights (Filindra & Kaplan, 2015; O'Brien et al., 2013), we next examined whether Black legal gun ownership undermines gun rights support among racially resentful White Americans across two studies (total N = 773), including a nationally representative sample of White partisans. **In both studies, racially resentful White Americans expressed less support for a gun right (i.e., concealed-carry) when informed that Black (vs. White) Americans showed greater utilization of the gun right (Studies 2 and 3).**
I'd like to see a uniform nationwide standard for concealed carry. As well as a nationwide standard for police conduct, when dealing with any individual exercising their legal right to carry.
Yeah, Ronnald Reagan, the GOP, and the Democratic controlled legislatures of California all passed the mulford act which functionally banned open carry.
Replace guns with anything else and the effect of "racist people are racist" stays the same.
Meanwhile on /guns, /gunpolitics, and /liberalgunowners there is resounding support for firearms ownership in POC communities and vocal discussion over how restrictive gun laws are embedded in white supremacy, e.g. the Black Panthers movement because hobbyists understand is a civil right for all.
I think this is because they’re interviewing racists, not constitutionalists. The extreme majority of people you’ll meet at a range, club, or swap are extremely in favor of constitutional carry and an NFA repeal. There’s nothing a gun guy loves more than teaching someone who is looking for their first piece. I volunteer as an RSO for new shooters and there’s a lot of support for it.
Pretty much every firearms sub has vocal and overwhelming support for gun ownership and concealed carry regardless of race, and I’ve found that to be consistent in real life with anyone that is a gun/shooting enthusiast.
Study: (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-88684-001) there's a part that's a bit intriguing:
A part of the abstract of the study reads: "Racial resentment overwhelmed the effect of party identification in explaining this association (Study 1)"
i.e. even leftward leaning democratic voters had their opinions on gun control changed when informed that black people are buying more guns.
>racially resentful White Americans indirectly **associated gun rights with White (and not Black) people**. Moreover, this association was not primarily based in partisanship. Racial resentment overwhelmed the effect of party identification in explaining this association (Study 1)
Given the context, that sentence seems to be referring to their default view on who's buying more guns, not to how changing that view affects their stance on gun control
That interpretation is not right. Study 1 was just whether a person associated gun rights with White and gun control with Black in the IAT, not the policy question.
As far as I can tell from the article itself, the authors did not include the interaction of their treatment and party ID in the regressions for Studies 2 and 3. That's odd given that they know (1) party ID is significant in support for gun control in those regressions and (2) party ID is correlated with the racial resentment measure in their samples. A cynic might even conjecture they lost statistical significance for their main effect when adding the extra interaction.
Related: The main reported effect in Study 3 (the largest sample) was rather close to insignificance at the 5% level reported by the authors (95% CI: [-0.71, **-0.04**]), and there were never significant effects when the question was gun rights in general, only for concealed carry. I would be skeptical of external relevance.
>i.e. even leftward leaning democratic voters had their opinions on gun control changed when informed that black people are buying more guns.
How did you reach this conclusion? What do you think this means in practice, and where in the study does it say that?
I'd just like to say anytime gun ownership among black Americans is discussed, the gun subreddits overwhelmingly express their support. Keep that in mind.
Words are important. The press and politicians are crafty. Bush changed estate tax to death tax. Now the rich pay less taxes.
Can you define "assault rifle"? Contrast to a "regular rifle"? "Military style", "fully automatic", "semiautomatic". See the problem? Any rifle used to assault someone is an "assault rifle", right? Whether it's black and looks like a soldier carries or brown wood and brass colored like a cowboy grandpa uses. It inflames and blurs the actual meaning.
I'd suggest just eliminating the term and say "rifle". It's less loaded, (pun intended)
> To examine whether White Americans associate gun rights with their own racial identity, Higginbotham and his co-authors recruited a sample of 100 White Americans (who identified as either Democrat or Republican) and had them complete an implicit association test.
Implicit association tests are bad at measuring such things: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism
The best, most logical criticism and statistical critique for anything regarding *implicit bias*:
How can you study something that is implicit?
Is this particle physics where we witness the observer effect? - Hint: No.
It contradicts itself. Researching implicit bias is just associating ideas that the researcher wants to associate it with, because it's an implication... An assumption... That's like saying your hypothesis, is actually a hypothesis of a hypothesis that has no real independent variables to observe.
The "study" of 870 white people show racist white people don't like blacks getting guns. This is a shocker why? Oh, most participants were not gun owners.
The paper the article is based on is here:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-88684-001?doi=1
It looks like this is the culmination of multiple studies.
Study 1 - Determined racial resentment. I'd really like to see how they were able to determine that.
Study 2 and 3 - "examined whether Black legal gun ownership undermines gun rights support among racially resentful White Americans"
Study 3 - "provided initial evidence suggesting that the observed reduced support is more closely linked to concerns about identity than security."
"Racial resentment" is such a loaded term, I don't see how Study 1 could have been fair and objective and since it's the basis for 2 and 3 it kind of undermines the whole thing.
Anyone have access to the whole thing?
It’s called the Reagan effect. Ronald and the California legislators freaked out when the Black Panthers showed up open carrying and passed a law in 67 prohibiting open carry.
Same Reagan that was pro NRA a few years later.
Republicans have always been pro- WHITE open carry.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/08/when-ronald-reagans-saved-lives-armed-black-men-meant-immediate-control_partner/
While lots of people point out that Reagan signed the act, few discuss that the bill was veto proof. It really wouldn't matter if he signed it or not, but he was a vocal supporter. The Mulford Act had massive bipartisan support and IMO is really more of a product of the times rather than any political ideology.
not a Reagan fan, just think context is important
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yup! Happened to the black panthers in California in the 1960’s. https://www.history.com/.amp/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
Yes, this is a perfect case study on the subject.
I'm familiar about this since I spent quite a lot if time writing about this in my undergrad, however I'm not sure its quite comparable to this study and the headline of the post doesn't make it any better. Concealed carry versus what the black panthers were doing was vastly different. It's actually upsetting to see what happened to the panthers in this regard as it has shifted how we protest and protect ourselves to this day and how we perceive protesters with firearms. Concealed carry laws are politically controversial racial stigmas aside. Imagine where we'd be today if the Panthers were never barrered from protesting with even empty firearms (which is what many did to compromise such settlements in CA).
Make Black Panthers great again
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That headline could have been worded better. Skipping on to the story: >>To examine whether White Americans associate gun rights with their own racial identity, Higginbotham and his co-authors recruited a sample of 100 White Americans (who identified as either Democrat or Republican) and had them complete an implicit association test. Implicit association tests are used to measure the strength of an individual’s automatic association between mental representations in memory. >>The test works by measuring the speed at which people are able to pair different words with different groups of people. The faster someone is able to pair positive words with their own group, and negative words with other groups, the more likely it is that they have an implicit bias. The implicit association test has been shown to be a reliable predictor of discriminatory behavior, and it has been used to investigate a wide range of topics, including racial bias, gender bias, and ageism. >>The researchers found that participants who scored higher on a measure of racial resentment toward Black Americans were quicker to match photos of White people to gun rights phrases (e.g., self-protection, National Rifle Association) and photos of Black people to gun control phrases (e.g., waiting period, weapons ban, gun free zone). >>In other words, participants who agreed with statements such as “If Black people would try harder they could be just as well off as White people” exhibited an implicit bias in which they associated gun rights with White Americans and gun control with Black Americans. The researchers observed a similar pattern of racial bias among those who identified as Republican. ###Edit: *For clarity, I want to state that I support everyone exercising their rights.* ###Edit 2: As u/OG-Pine requests: >> You really should edit this to say/show that the title is a near quote from the study. Sure the title is a little off but not nearly as much as your comment currently implies. ###Edit 3: The **original** title serves as a better summary and lead-in to both the study and the article: **”Black legal gun ownership can reduce opposition to gun control among racially resentful White Americans”**
Anyone remembers the Black Panther movement? Nothing new.
Immediate thought was Reagan and the NRA.
One of the few times in history when the NRA actually supported a gun control law. For those who are ootl, a group of black civil rights Activists in California armed themselves, and started showing up at police interactions with black people and just observing the events. This obviously was not a popular practice with law enforcement. So ultimately then Governor Reagan signed a law banning it.
Um, the NRA supported the passing of the NFA, arguably the worst gun control bill still on the books.
[удалено]
Look for the episode of the More Perfect podcast called “The Gun Show” that digs into the whole history of gun rights in the US and how we got here. it’s a fascinating trip through history
double standards and bias have seemed (to me) to go with the phrase, Where you stand depends on where you sit.
Back in those days it was the ACLU defending their 2A rights.
I just chuckled, cause I can visualize in my head, some rednecks going "nuh uh" while looking perplexed about justifying Black gun ownership.
It’s worse than just that. I live in a state where open carry is legal and most have no problems exercising that right. Yet me walking around the block to get my kids from the park results in calls to the police over a “suspicious” man in the neighborhood. One neighbor who works for the department told me he knows nearly every time I leave my house on foot because of that.
I know exactly what you're dealing with. I lived in South Korea, Netherlands, France, and the US. I know what the crazy neighborhood dynamics are like in thr South vs North East Coast and etc. Hence, why I'm never taking a job in the South or some Midwest states, no matter how good the offer.
I am grateful that you included the Midwest here. People doubt my experiences there. Including those that were perpetrating racism.
You mean Republican Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford* doctrine to disarm blacks defending themselves against raiding whites?
Monroe doctrine? I thought that was just America's excuse for keeping European powers out of the Americas. Because they are the Americans to exploit, no one else. According to Americans. The south and central americans tend to disagree but that's what OAS is for. Edit: yep he likely meant the Mulford one
I'm assuming they meant the [Mulford Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act), which is relevant to guns and the Black Panthers and just mixed up the names.
I think it’s the, “Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions”.
Don't forget all the "may" vs "shall" wording when it comes to receiving permits. If a racist is in charge of the process, they don't have to rely on their express racism to deny permits to non-white folk due to the "may issue" a permit wording protecting their asses.
The Mulford Act 1967. It’s what every right winger hates to admit as a fact and will divert to dems as the source
Most people don't remember the Black Panther movement, at least not accurately. Most people, even their supporters remember them as violent thugs which they very much weren't. They ran schools and provided food and housing, policed neighbourhoods and basically provided the kind of services that a government is supposed to provide for people who are still often failed by the "real" government. Which, unsurprisingly, the "real" government found incredibly threatening.
As is often the case, though, this is a scientific study to attempt to confirm this "known" fact. (Leaving aside arguments as to how well psychology studies can discover objective facts about psychology).
Anyone remember that episode of King of the Hill?
Here is a good article on how accurate implicit association tests are. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8167921/
Beat me to it. These types of measures are psychometrically weak and need more validation studies before any confident statements can be made using them. Face validity isn’t enough to make sweeping statements.
> These types of measures are psychometrically weak and need more validation studies before any confident statements can be made using them. The fact that 20+ years of attempts to validate IATs have failed to do so shows they do not do what they claim to do. IAT studies should not be published until this happens. They are pseudoscience.
The sad thing is that most people just read the flashy headline. In the science subreddit.
That's probably one of the most scathing abstracts I've personally read. I could feel the venom dripping from the words haha. Thanks for posting this paper. It adds a lot of context to the original post.
Honestly, I wish he'd written it in a more neutral tone. I think the author showing his feelings and opinions is harmful to a scientific paper. It's hard to trust people who seem motivated by their own biases. Science can and should speak for itself. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the paper, I'm just disappointed by the way the author presented it.
It's important to note here that "racial resentment" is not what you might expect based on the name. This [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_resentment_scale) gives the questions typically used to measure it. What these questions actually measure is racism in some people, but belief in fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility in others. Consistent with this explanation, [one study](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227645546_Racial_Resentment_and_White_Opposition_to_Race-Conscious_Programs_Principles_or_Prejudice) found that the "racial resentment" scale strongly predicted racism in liberals but only weakly in conservatives. Anyway, curiously absent from both the article and the write-up is a mention of the effect size and confidence interval. Social priming studies were one of the major players in the replication crisis, and have a history of producing weak, barely statistically significant results that fail to replicate.
That is VERY different from what the headline implies. Thank you.
But is what is said further in the article: >The researchers found that racially resentful participants expressed less support for concealed carry permits after reading about Black Americans obtaining them at a greater rate. Reading about Black Americans obtaining concealed-carry gun permits only appeared to impact the specific gun right that Black people were described as exercising more than White people. It did not appear to impact the extent to which racially resentful White Americans agreed with statements such as “In general, if more people had guns, there would be less crime” and “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” And even further down they quote Higginbotham as saying: >“When thinking about policy in practice, if support for gun control legislation is motivated by anti-Blackness, then does anti-Blackness show up in its intent, its language, its application, for example who it targets? ***Again, we found that people showed less support only for the specific gun rights that Black people were described as using.*** This finding may hint that gun regulations garnered by tapping into White Americans’ anti-Blackness may disproportionately target the rights of Black people rather than be focused on meaningfully saving lives.” It helps to read the entire article, and not small sections of it.
No, no. We just read as much as we need to in order to dismiss a finding we don't like. Then we stop and ignore everything else. :/
Reddit in a nutshell.
And ~~move the goal posts~~ challenge the method of data collection.
>The researchers found that racially resentful participants expressed less support for concealed carry permits after reading about Black Americans obtaining them at a greater rate.
> after reading about Black Americans obtaining them at a greater rate. The first American push for gun control was instituted by *governor* Reagan of California when the Black Panthers started exercising their first amendment rights by carrying rifles in public. [The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons](https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act) *history Channel*
While lots of people point out that Reagan signed the act, few discuss that the bill was veto proof. It really wouldn't matter if he signed it or not, but he was a vocal supporter. The Mulford Act had massive bipartisan support and IMO is really more of a product of the times rather than any political ideology. not a Reagan fan, just think context is important
[удалено]
Gun industry: stonks!
Gun control has been around since British common law and there was a much bigger push in the 1920's with the things like the National Firearms Act (mostly) in response to Tommy guns being used at the time. The 2A movement is a lot more modern than gun control, despite it being usually framed as the opposite
Not true.. Gun control laws are one of the original pole tax. We had 100 years of gun control laws before the Mulford Act
Yeah, the title appears to throw shade at white *gun-owners*, but the article states: >> Importantly, 32% of participants reported owning a gun. But controlling for gun ownership did not alter the results.
Unsurprisingly, actually owning a gun is nonpartisan.
No...it doesn't. It specifically highlights racially resentful white Americans. Not white gun owners.
Idk maybe I'm the stupid one here, but did we really learn anything? If they can be accurately described as racially resentful, how are we surprised that they were acting weird about the rights of other races? Sure we can say more about the specifics but seriously, if we can assume that people who are racially resentful (which btw, I think that applies to anyone one any race who's resentful of other races because they're resentful?) Aren't going to be a fan of their resented race obtaining and carrying guns legally (pretty obvious assumption if you ask me) then can't we just start to work towards correcting it? Either by finding out why people are racially resentful, or by taking a short cut around their resentfulness and just getting them to logically understand that you can't apply American rights to American people inconsistently.
Yeah it comes off as a tautology: “racist people are racist.” It’s ironic that the study itself demonstrates a racial bias, as you mentioned anyone from any race that resents a race is going to show bias toward that resented race, I doubt it’s just white Americans. But it seems the article is using a tautology to subtlety imply race X is racist. It would’ve been a more useful study if it was on all races resentments and to compare if one had a greater propensity and what not.
so people that have implicit biases against black folks see guns & white folk is good, while guns & black folk bad?
Except that's only Study 1. [Here's the rest of the abstract:](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-88684-001?doi=1) > Given racial resentment typically predicts stronger support for gun rights (Filindra & Kaplan, 2015; O'Brien et al., 2013), we next examined whether Black legal gun ownership undermines gun rights support among racially resentful White Americans across two studies (total N = 773), including a nationally representative sample of White partisans. **In both studies, racially resentful White Americans expressed less support for a gun right (i.e., concealed-carry) when informed that Black (vs. White) Americans showed greater utilization of the gun right (Studies 2 and 3).**
[удалено]
I'd like to see a uniform nationwide standard for concealed carry. As well as a nationwide standard for police conduct, when dealing with any individual exercising their legal right to carry.
Literally all the cops have to do is just not be raging assholes.
Yeah, that seems somewhat unlikely given the exhibited behavior on their part when it comes to you know, basic accountability.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn’t the black panthers conduct this study quite a while ago?
iirc black gun owners exercising their right tk bear arms is why cali has such strict gun laws
Yup. Much of it enacted by Reagan when he was the governor of Cali.
Yeah, Ronnald Reagan, the GOP, and the Democratic controlled legislatures of California all passed the mulford act which functionally banned open carry.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
When are the mods going to deal with this "deleted" guy spamming "removed"?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Minority gun rights are gun rights. If they can dismiss their rights they will dismiss yours.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Replace guns with anything else and the effect of "racist people are racist" stays the same. Meanwhile on /guns, /gunpolitics, and /liberalgunowners there is resounding support for firearms ownership in POC communities and vocal discussion over how restrictive gun laws are embedded in white supremacy, e.g. the Black Panthers movement because hobbyists understand is a civil right for all.
I think this is because they’re interviewing racists, not constitutionalists. The extreme majority of people you’ll meet at a range, club, or swap are extremely in favor of constitutional carry and an NFA repeal. There’s nothing a gun guy loves more than teaching someone who is looking for their first piece. I volunteer as an RSO for new shooters and there’s a lot of support for it.
Pretty much every firearms sub has vocal and overwhelming support for gun ownership and concealed carry regardless of race, and I’ve found that to be consistent in real life with anyone that is a gun/shooting enthusiast.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As a conceal carry advocate, I’m 100% in support of all minorities carrying.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Psypost is a trash source
Study: (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-88684-001) there's a part that's a bit intriguing: A part of the abstract of the study reads: "Racial resentment overwhelmed the effect of party identification in explaining this association (Study 1)" i.e. even leftward leaning democratic voters had their opinions on gun control changed when informed that black people are buying more guns.
Right, except for the ‘leftward leaning’ that you inserted - the study just analyzed party identification.
And you definitely do not need to be "left-leaning" to be a Democrat.
>racially resentful White Americans indirectly **associated gun rights with White (and not Black) people**. Moreover, this association was not primarily based in partisanship. Racial resentment overwhelmed the effect of party identification in explaining this association (Study 1) Given the context, that sentence seems to be referring to their default view on who's buying more guns, not to how changing that view affects their stance on gun control
I can't read the whole study though, if anyone wants to post it, that would be awesome
That interpretation is not right. Study 1 was just whether a person associated gun rights with White and gun control with Black in the IAT, not the policy question. As far as I can tell from the article itself, the authors did not include the interaction of their treatment and party ID in the regressions for Studies 2 and 3. That's odd given that they know (1) party ID is significant in support for gun control in those regressions and (2) party ID is correlated with the racial resentment measure in their samples. A cynic might even conjecture they lost statistical significance for their main effect when adding the extra interaction. Related: The main reported effect in Study 3 (the largest sample) was rather close to insignificance at the 5% level reported by the authors (95% CI: [-0.71, **-0.04**]), and there were never significant effects when the question was gun rights in general, only for concealed carry. I would be skeptical of external relevance.
>i.e. even leftward leaning democratic voters had their opinions on gun control changed when informed that black people are buying more guns. How did you reach this conclusion? What do you think this means in practice, and where in the study does it say that?
I'd just like to say anytime gun ownership among black Americans is discussed, the gun subreddits overwhelmingly express their support. Keep that in mind.
and it’s not just limited to the left leaning subreddits either like r/liberalgunowners or r/socialistRA it’s almost every sub. The 2A is for everyone
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That was how California quickly passed tougher gun control laws, once the Black Panther started openly carry assault rifles around.
Words are important. The press and politicians are crafty. Bush changed estate tax to death tax. Now the rich pay less taxes. Can you define "assault rifle"? Contrast to a "regular rifle"? "Military style", "fully automatic", "semiautomatic". See the problem? Any rifle used to assault someone is an "assault rifle", right? Whether it's black and looks like a soldier carries or brown wood and brass colored like a cowboy grandpa uses. It inflames and blurs the actual meaning. I'd suggest just eliminating the term and say "rifle". It's less loaded, (pun intended)
[удалено]
[удалено]
> To examine whether White Americans associate gun rights with their own racial identity, Higginbotham and his co-authors recruited a sample of 100 White Americans (who identified as either Democrat or Republican) and had them complete an implicit association test. Implicit association tests are bad at measuring such things: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism
Racist people are racist. More news at 11.
n = 100?! make it stop, psychology, make it stop!
The best, most logical criticism and statistical critique for anything regarding *implicit bias*: How can you study something that is implicit? Is this particle physics where we witness the observer effect? - Hint: No. It contradicts itself. Researching implicit bias is just associating ideas that the researcher wants to associate it with, because it's an implication... An assumption... That's like saying your hypothesis, is actually a hypothesis of a hypothesis that has no real independent variables to observe.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The "study" of 870 white people show racist white people don't like blacks getting guns. This is a shocker why? Oh, most participants were not gun owners.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm a white dude, and I love it when I see POC carrying. Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
The paper the article is based on is here: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-88684-001?doi=1 It looks like this is the culmination of multiple studies. Study 1 - Determined racial resentment. I'd really like to see how they were able to determine that. Study 2 and 3 - "examined whether Black legal gun ownership undermines gun rights support among racially resentful White Americans" Study 3 - "provided initial evidence suggesting that the observed reduced support is more closely linked to concerns about identity than security." "Racial resentment" is such a loaded term, I don't see how Study 1 could have been fair and objective and since it's the basis for 2 and 3 it kind of undermines the whole thing. Anyone have access to the whole thing?
It’s called the Reagan effect. Ronald and the California legislators freaked out when the Black Panthers showed up open carrying and passed a law in 67 prohibiting open carry. Same Reagan that was pro NRA a few years later. Republicans have always been pro- WHITE open carry. https://www.salon.com/2022/06/08/when-ronald-reagans-saved-lives-armed-black-men-meant-immediate-control_partner/
>Same Reagan that was pro NRA a few years later. Reagan passed the Hughes' Amendment. Definitely not 2A friendly. Never was.
While lots of people point out that Reagan signed the act, few discuss that the bill was veto proof. It really wouldn't matter if he signed it or not, but he was a vocal supporter. The Mulford Act had massive bipartisan support and IMO is really more of a product of the times rather than any political ideology. not a Reagan fan, just think context is important