Gun Control

Meet the Press Runs 'Gun Violence' Report After Racist Massacre, Calling the Issue 'Color-Blind'

Meanwhile, Martin O'Malley tries to reposition himself.

|

You say the killer was white? Sorry, dude, I don't see color.
NBC

Meet the Press already had a segment about gun violence in the works when the Charleston church massacre happened last week: a video of inmates at Sing Sing saying what they'd tell their younger selves "that could have made them put down the gun." The network evidently felt Charleston was a perfect newspeg for the piece, since host Chuck Todd led in to the story by talking about the assault and then saying this:

The circumstances you are about to see are very different from the racist violence in Charleston. In this case, the inmates are African American that you're gonna hear from. But their lessons remain important, and we simply ask you to look at this as a color-blind issue, about simply gun violence.

The complaints came so quickly that Todd felt the need to issue a not-very-apologetic explanation for the report. (Sample line: "As I say to all audiences, Meet the Press should make all viewers uncomfortable at some point or we are not doing our job.") Nothing in his comments erased the fact that his show's reaction to a white racist murdering nine black people was to declare the larger issue "color-blind" and air a report about black criminals. This is the genteel liberal counterpart to a conservative in a comment thread sputtering "B-b-but what about black-on-black violence?"

A former Maryland governor running a law'n'order campaign? Sounds familiar.
MSNBC

Todd isn't the only figure to get caught off guard like this, leaping so quickly to treat this as a gun story that he trips over the racial angle. Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley made a similar mistake last week on Morning Joe, coming prepared to talk about his gun-control proposals (even though they probably would not have stopped the Charleston attack) and stammering when asked about the shooter's racist motives (even though they were the reason for the Charleston attack). Speaking to the U.S. Conference of Mayors yesterday, O'Malley seemed determined not to repeat the mistake. He condemned the killer's racism, inserted a call for South Carolina's government to stop flying a Confederate flag, and tried to coopt the "black lives matter" slogan:

One of the sad triumphs of white racism is the degree to which it has succeeded in subconsciously convincing so many of us—black and white—that somehow black lives don't matter. If the thousands of young men killed by gun violence every year across America were young, poor, and white rather than young, poor, and black, it is hard to imagine that our Congress would continue to block common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Needless to say, this not only presupposes that his proposals will actually reduce that violence; it ignores whether such a crackdown will add to the number of young, poor, and black people caught in the maw of the carceral state. (The latter point is often raised not just by the libertarians you'd expect to hear it from, but by a number of voices on the left who have no fondness for guns but also no illusions about how the criminal justice system functions in practice.)

But it's an interesting bit of positioning. In an election where several candidates have offered at least pro forma criticisms of mass incarceration and police abuse, O'Malley has been at a disadvantage, given his record as mayor of Baltimore. (The city wound up paying an $870,000 settlement for unconstitutional arrests conducted during his tenure.) Yoking anti-racist rhetoric to his law'n'order proposals might help him get out from under that shadow. But not if people like Chuck Todd keep dropping the mask.

NEXT: Free the Nipple Movement Shows the Banality of Modern Feminism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, let’s just heap on the derp. More for everyone! Because there’s a neverending supply. It’s better than the sun!

    If only we could harness the derp’s power, somehow harness it to be used for good.

    But alas – it is a fool’s errand….

  2. They are keeping so many grievance plates spinning that they lose track of which one is about to come crashing down.

  3. Ha, they’re only couching it as color-blind because they already had the footage.

  4. “If the thousands of young men killed by gun violence every year across America were young, poor, and white rather than young, poor, and black, it is hard to imagine that our Congress would continue to block common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”

    “If the thousands of young men killed by gun violence every year across America were old, wealthy, white, female, and microcephalic rather than young, poor, black, male, and of normal cranial circumference, it is hard to imagine that our Congress would continue to block common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”

    1. Goddamn, they figure if they put “common-sense” before any fucking retarded authoritarian proposal, eventually people will just break down and say “Okay, let’s do it”.
      Christ, they really think people are morons…

      1. – “Christ, they really think people are morons…”

        Given how many people keep voting for them it’s kinda’ difficult to argue that they’re wrong.

    2. It’s kind of funny/sad considering that the group in the US at the second-highest risk of death by homicide is, in fact, young white men (AFAICT). So I guess the statement requires us to believe that Congress is cool with the deaths of young white men as long as they aren’t the #1 homicide demographic.

  5. One of my Facebook whatevers was irate that the NRA stated that the Charleston massacre wouldn’t have been as bad if Pinckney allowed guns in his church.

    I don’t see anything factually wrong with that statement, at all. Progressives really want black folk to be helpless, don’t they?

    1. Progressives are terrified of guns period. As it is with just about every other topic, they believe that if people would do what they say all the bad people/things would go away. It’s infantile and asinine.

      They would argue that if we just ban all guns that gun crime rates would resemble Europe, ignoring the fact that the majority of gun crimes occur with illegal guns.

      They are living in a fantasy world.

      1. They would argue that if we just ban all guns that gun crime rates would resemble Europe, ignoring the fact that the majority of gun crimes occur with illegal guns.

        Nuh-uh, illegal guns would be banned, too, DUH!

      2. They also ignore that most of America already has crime rates on par with Europe but that there are small urban enclaves with sky-high homicide rates that make our numbers higher. That kind of implies that the problem stems from certain violent localities rather than there being a problem with crime in America generally, and that any attempts to fix crime should focus on those small, high crime regions rather than trying for an idiotic national policy that doesn’t actually target the areas where crime happens.

        1. AND that the UK, for instance, only counts a homicide as murder once they have obtained a conviction; doesn’t matter what the coroner calls it or how obviously it is a murder. Their comparable murder rate is probably double or triple the published rate.

          AND that almost every EU country has a violent crime rate double or triple the US, with the UK being the worst, IIRC, and with apologies to Nikki.

          1. Do you have some good sources for this?

            1. Used to be that wikipedia had an entry for violent crime rates by country; but googling for it now just brought up murder rates, and I am not interested in fighting google right now.

        2. I’ve tried that tack, and I’ve gotten in response “Well, see, you don’t really need a firearm to defend yourself”

          No, seriously.

          1. I guess for short range a switch blade would help. But in most places those are illegal to carry too, so some solution.

            I guess you can always watch Walker Texas Ranger episodes until you’ve learned how to defeat a troupe of armed men with only your knuckles.

  6. It takes a special kind of idiot to run a piece claiming gun violence is colorblind in a country where black people are like 10 times more likely to be shot to death than white people. Children don’t tend to get tragically shot to death in the lily-white neighborhood my parents live in, but 15 miles to the east, kids in inner city Chicago get woken up at night by gunshots.

    Also, O’Malley is like the platonic ideal of a sleazy politician. Whatever the constituency he’s trying to get to elect him might happen to be worrying about currently, that immediately becomes the most important issue O’Malley could imagine. I don’t think O’Malley actually has ideas, I think he’s a robot that just repeats the ideas currently held by potential voters it’s trying to court.

    1. BEEP BOOP ENTER VOTE-ACCUMULATING MODE START PANDERING BWEEP BWOP

    2. This chart illustrates it nice and inconveniently.

      1. When are those numbers from? The Hispanic homicide rate is definitely way lower than the rate on that graph, and I think the black rate isn’t that high either.

          1. It’s also only looking at a subset of the population that’s particularly likely to commit murder.

    3. If O’Malley doesn’t drop out of the race soon, i’m definitely springing for an Old Glory robot attack policy for my family.

  7. I disagree with O’Malley that black lives don’t matter. It is, however, clear, that black rights don’t matter, or at least don’t matter to people like O’Malley. Since the perpetrators of the murders he is talking about are overwhelmingly black and the people who will most likely be prosecuted under the laws O’Malley is advocating are also black, O’Malley is just saying “we need to do something to get guns out of the hands of black people” in a more polite way.

    He is a straight up racist who doesn’t think black people are competent to own weapons and thus should not have a right to do so. The fact that he would take white people’s guns too is just an incidental side effect to his main goal of keeping the blacks disarmed.

    1. That’s what makes him an old-school gun grabber. Gun grabbing has its roots in racism and keeping weapons out of the hands of black people. Getting people like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on board to disarm their own people, like I said in the earlier thread, is a great coup on the part of old school gun grabbers (like O’Malley and my Congressfucker Don Beyer).

      1. If we had anything but a state run media, a reporter would ask him something to the effect of “Since the killers of you black men are overwhelmingly other young, black men, would it be fair to say that you see this as a problem of young, black men having access to guns?”

        He would likely be smart enough to no better than to just say “yes”. The stammering and butt hurt that resulting would be priceless.

      2. Volvo Boy is your rep? My condolences.

        1. Yep. My Congressional Representative is a fucking CAR SALESMAN.

      3. “Getting people like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on board to disarm their own people”…

        Douglass (and Malcolm and King) knew better than to fall for this. Kinda makes me see Sharpton and Jackson in the light of how they act like Steven from “Django Unchained”…

        House negroes the lot of them….

        1. Frederick Douglass had some serious libertarian-leanings, non? Don’t know too much about him, but I think I’ve seen him mentioned in libertarian context.

          1. Wikipedia and Wikiquote is a great thing. And by the way, I am feelin’ you today…

    2. There was an article in Slate that basically argued urban black people can’t handle guns like rural white people can. It was an article saying St. Louis should become part of Illinois so that they could receive the noble Blue State Gun Laws that would protect the urban blacks from their own violent impulses.

      He didn’t use those terms, but it’s hard to read this without getting the feeling that the writer has a queasily condescending view of black people in St. Louis:

      “I asked McClellan last week if he stood by the proposal, and he did. “It would make a lot of sense,” he said, citing the gun law as one example. “People in rural Missouri drive around with rifles and shotguns in their pickups and don’t shoot each other up, but here in St. Louis, we have a lot of drive-by shootings. They even pronounce the name of the state differently?in rural Missouri, it’s Missouruh. Here, it’s Missouree.”

      And of course the writer of the Slate piece is Alec MacGillis and the St. Louis Dispatch writer is Bill McLellan, so you’ve got two Scottish/Irish white people saying black residents of St. Louis can’t be trusted with guns the way rural Missourians can.

      1. It is the white man’s burden to keep black people safe from themselves and each other.

      2. Disgusting. I see elitism and racism in every single corner of the progressive mindset, yet they think they’re the most tolerant, colorblind people on the planet.

        They’re basically saying urban black folk are primitives with less evolved capacity for reason than the rest of humanity.

      3. Oh, and East St. Louis is already in Illinois and, despite those Noble Blue State Gun, has the highest homicide rate in the country.

        So…their argument is pretty fucking stupid.

        1. Also, Chicago.

      4. As ridiculous as that article is, I find it amusing that it features leftists advocating the redrawing of state lines so they be within the borders of a leftist state. Somehow, I’m guessing their views of the State of Jefferson people are much less approving.

      5. And, of course, if by some chance a young black criminal gets a gun despite the law, then they want his potential victims – usually black – to be disarmed.

        In other words, disarm the elderly black woman who lives in a high-crime area to deter young, black criminals. And disarm young black men with honest jobs whose work requires them carry cash, in order to deter the criminals.

        Yeah, these are the guys who think black lives matter. /sarc

      6. Holy hell, that is awful. I guess guns are so powerful that black folk can’t help but use them.

  8. “it is hard to imagine that our Congress would continue to block common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”

    Ok, either there’s a secret newsletter alerting lefties of which buzzwords they’re supposed to be using (“x privilege” and “common sense” being quite popular the last couple of years) or these people are just faddish parrots.

    It’s a good thing this wasn’t going on in 1941, otherwise FDR would’ve given Americans common sense concentration camps.

    1. LMFAO.
      That is better than the “Leave-You-Alone” camps that libertarians want to set up!

  9. I’m pretty sure blue is still a color, MtP.

  10. I guess I’m not sure what O’Malley or Todd or anyone else is supposed to say in reaction Charleston. Racism is bad, don’t let your kid be racist… that’s about it. O’Malley obviously should have been prepared for such an occasion, but I don’t know what BS he was supposed to say. I’m not a politician.

    1. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

      1. The last guy to get elected on that platform was Calvin Coolidge.

        1. One of the best Presidents ever was ironically from Vermont.

          That state sure has gone downhill in the last 100 years.

  11. It’s always interesting to see these people taking the old racist position that you can’t let the niggers have guns because they’re too violent, and try to dress it up in colorblind rhetoric. It never seems to work too well.

    1. It doesn’t to you and I but it does to them. Somehow the common sense answer of “why shouldn’t black people be able to own guns and defend themselves” has become the racist answer. The people who care and think black lives matter know we can’ t let the Negroes have access to such dangerous things like guns.

      1. Youtube “Black NRA” to see progressive racism at its hippest, hilarious best being passed off as “comedy”….or maybe “satire”.

        But they are making the same argument.

        1. I think Mr. Colion Noir made a great response to that video. See if I can find it…

          1. Here it is (have I mentioned how much I love Colion Noir? He’s not quite up there with Ron Swanson, but close).

            1. Colion is the truth, yo. Love him and his videos. And he is right in calling out that trash as the most racist shit imaginable, but none of those good liberals gets called on it…

              1. Remember, it’s ok when they do it.

  12. It was interesting. I didn’t mind the fact that there was no romantic interest. Gives you more time for action but you more nice video check this way and comment me
    Best Home Deal ?????? http://www.BuzzReport20.com

  13. One of the few satisfying things, in all of the shit we have to eat daily regarding government and politics, has been the gun grabbers’ dedication to dying on this hill, again and again and again. They’re fucking pathological. They’ve had their asses handed to them countless times but they just cannot stop trying. It’s clearly a compulsion. Every time a tragedy happens, you can see them perk up in the hopes that just maybe this time they can stand on enough corpses to get what they want. It’s really, really creepy, if you think about it. They want nothing more than to make sure people can’t defend themselves. That’s what they dream about. That’s what they’re willing to embarrass themselves about every single time anything happens.

    Keep it up, losers.

    1. They also think that there are more cases of domestic violence with guns than there are successful home defense incidents with guns, and that this justifies not allowing guns at all.

      1. They oppose home defense with guns because they consider self defense to be vigilante justice. These are people who will say that the government has the monopoly on all violence. Period. Stop. As in no violence at all is justified, including self defense, by anyone other than government. They would rather you die with a phone in your hand than live with a gun in your hand.

        1. This is why it’s so much fun for me to use gun rights as a feminist issue (as well as a racial issue, but because I’m white the racial thing doesn’t always gain traction). All those feminists with their bullshit “woman power!!”, when in reality they want women to be cowering, sniveling victims. Fuck them.

          1. That is where I start with any gun argument these days. OF course, if the person is black I usually start with “Oh, so you just want the police to only have guns?” (I guess I profile when it comes to rhetoric). But when I meet a gun grabber I usually start with the question: “Do you believe people EVER have a right to lawful self-defense – in any situation?”
            If they say no, there is no fucking point even mentally masturbating with them. They cannot be reasoned with.

      2. It is inherent to their mindset that they want you unable to defend yourself. I’m not really sure where that compulsion comes from with them, but wherever it comes from…they have it. It pisses them the fuck off that you can go buy a gun to protect yourself. They hate that. And oddly enough, many of those who support gun control support it for themselves too, which is the strangest thing ever. I get a politician wanting their armed guards and access to guns for him/herself and not the peasants. It’s a status thing. But who in their right mind would want themselves disarmed? It’s incredibly weird. My suspicion is that it’s tied into self-hatred (a hugely common theme in progressives).

        1. They know themselves to be emotional twits who cannot be trusted with a firearm, and then project that onto everyone else.

          1. That’s definitely part of it, but humans are pretty self-interested. It’s very human to project, very human to worry that no one can be trusted with a gun because you can’t. But to still close off that option to yourself instead of just to everyone else…that’s unusual.

        2. It’s a power thing. I think that the gun grabbers, the ones who really believe in it, are above all else hierarchical. They want order, they want organization, they want safety. If any idiot can obtain the fundamental means of political power, well, that’s not very orderly, now is it?

          1. The other half of it is that guns are a marker of tribal membership. To a large extent, to have a gun is to be a redneck, and to be a redneck is to have guns. It’s essentially the Confederate flag without so many uncomfortable racial politics. Thus the desperate attempts to make gun ownership prima facie evidence of racism.

    2. Show me a gun grabber, and I’ll show you someone who will defend the police in almost any situation. They want the cops to be the only people with guns because they imagine the cops to be on their side. What they fail to understand is that once everyone is disarmed, then the government violence that they imagine using on those who disagree with them will eventually be used on them.

      1. That’s actually not true, which is what makes the situation so bizarre. These are the same people who, by and large, believe the cops are untrustworthy and probably racist and murder black people constantly for no reason. So when talking about Black Lives Matter, cops are horrible and racist, but when talking about gun control, they’re the only people who can be trusted with firearms.

        1. These are the same people who, by and large, believe the cops are untrustworthy and probably racist and murder black people constantly for no reason.

          Bad apples, dude. Bad apples.

        2. yep, that is the most bizarre contradiction. They know how dangerous cops are, but dammit, they need to be the only people with guns, because the rest of us are crazy people that will start shooting each other with the frequency of sneezing.

          1. Yeah cops are dangerous with guns, but not as dangerous as nig- um I mean Nigerians, and other people who came from that part of the world.

            Phew that was close, I almost said nigger but I covered pretty well. Good thing I turned the mike off before making any stupid racist statements.

        3. I agree w/Irish. All of my progressive friends were up in arms about Michael Brown (where were they when Aiyana Jones was murdered? Probably at an anti-fraking protest) and racist cops and cops suck and fuck the police and cops can’t be trusted.

          Then they turn around and say no one can have guns (then in really, really fine print – except for cops and soldiers).

          It’s the whole principles/principals thing again. When you don’t have principles, you have no ideological consistency.

          1. It’s probably that they want the cops to not have guns either, but realize that is too extreme of a position to take. Leaving us at the mercy of still armed cops is their idea of a compromise.

          2. Then how come the talk I see is almost always about individual cops, not cop culture? If they really hated cops and didn’t trust them, then in the wake of these shootings the talk would be about cops in general, not rooting out racist individuals from the ranks. I get the feeling that most of the gun grabbers really do trust the cops in a general sense.

          3. As Stefan Molyneux pointed out, they’re not “anti-gun”, they’re “anti-anyone-but-the-government-having-guns”.

        4. I think the first thing is that they confuse what they want with what’s actually possible. They want a peaceful nation of unarmed people, and they want polite, well-behaved police. The second thing is that they think yelling and screaming about things is enough to accomplish them. This is kind of true in politics, where if your goal is to get the Make Everything Better Act of 2015 passed, yelling and screaming may in fact accomplish that, but it doesn’t work so well for fighting crime.

  14. Nothing in his comments erased the fact that his show’s reaction to a white racist murdering nine black people was to declare the larger issue “color-blind” and air a report about black criminals. This is the genteel liberal counterpart to a conservative in a comment thread sputtering “B-b-but what about black-on-black violence?”

    I did not see the show, so I have no sense of context.
    I’m not really sure what you’re driving at, here. Is it, “The one time when throwing down the race card would be completely appropriate, they muffed it,”? This only holds true in this specific case, unless you want to try to tell me this boy was a hapless victim of our racist culture (in which case, FUCK OFF would be my response).
    Does this have something to do with “racially biased” policing?
    We’re inundated by collectivised “explanations” for individual acts. People want to see patterns, even where there are none. Stop trying to put the actions of individuals into collectivist baskets.

  15. “a video of inmates at Sing Sing saying what they’d tell their younger selves “that could have made them put down the gun.””

    Ah, so this is a gun-rights video? Criminals have guns, so unless their future selves stop them, then victims need to be armed in self-defense.

    That *is* the point of the video, isn’t it?

  16. Chris Wallace Chuck Todd

    1. Chris Wallace is a much better host than Chuck Todd.

      1. Seems the requirement to host Meet the Depressed is a healthy set of moobs.

  17. They’re fucking pathological. They’ve had their asses handed to them countless times but they just cannot stop trying. It’s clearly a compulsion.

    Big Brotherism is their religion. You don’t abandon God and His Commandments just because He shits all over you and then laughs in your face.
    Randy Newman got it right-
    I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
    I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
    You all must be crazy to put your faith in me

  18. If the thousands of young men killed by gun violence every year across America were young, poor, and white rather than young, poor, and black, it is hard to imagine that our Congress would continue to block common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

    Gun control ? it’s for the children blacks.

    Of course that the most sensible legislation that Congress could and should pass to stem or even reduce the murder rate among your black Americans would be to repeal anti-drug or so-called “drug control” laws. The Marxians will have none of it because they’re not really that interested in blacks ?or whites for that matter? but in having a pliable and defenseless population with which to play their little games.

    1. Shoot. Should say “YOUNG black Americans.”

  19. What a looney bunch we have in America. Something over 700 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty. That matters, too. I haven’t been shot or otherwise killed, perhaps due to my white privilege. So happy to be on MediCare and social security and having whiners and complainers pay for my retired lifestyle. That should matter, too.

  20. The only problem with this rant by the left is criminals are already barred from LEGALLY getting a gun and therefore get them ILLEGALLY and the mentally ill are as well barred, but HIPPA laws prevent the sharing of information about a person mental status if they have no demonstrated they are a risk to themselves or others. The one truth the left hates to admit is firearms are the most regulated item sold in the US. There are over 20,000 Federal and state laws regulating the possession, sale, transfer and use of firearms. In 2010, the FBI sent the names of 368,000 convicted felons who were caught by the current check system attempting to purchase a gun which is already a federal crime punishable by up to 10 yrs in prison to the US Dept of Justice for prosecution. Of those 368,000 names, the attorneys working for Eric Holder prosecuted 16 or .0000043%. When the Federal government refuses to enforce the laws already in place, how exactly will more laws fix the problem? We all know they won’t but only make it appear the government is doing something and in fact is a ploy to move the country toward eventual banning and confiscation of all privately held arms.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.