Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'll give you a Canadian example. Our gun control system has three tiers: non-restricted (basic rifles/"long guns", shotguns), restricted (pistols, AR-type rifles, an arbitrary list established by the RCMP), and prohibited (machine guns, some pistols, some crazy stuff). Each tier has more restrictive licensing.

For non-restricted, you do a ~$200 course over a weekend, send $60 to the RCMP, and if you don't have any concerning criminal behaviour in your past, you're free to buy as many rifles as you want.

For restricted, you do another weekend course, pay another fee to the RCMP, and go through a more thorough background check. Per my understanding, this check used to only cover the last 5 years, but recent legislation has, I believe, extended that to your lifetime. So you pass the background check, get your license, and now you're good to go? No. When you go to buy a handgun, you have to say what you're buying it for, and there are only two choices: target shooting or collector. If you ever plan on actually shooting it, you choose target practice. Now, before approving the transfer, the RCMP needs confirmation that you're a member of a shooting club with a range. Around here, that's another $150-$300/year.

So at this point, you've spent around $700, used up two weekends, and spent time on multiple phone calls (only open from 9am-5pm), and you're finally OK to buy your first handgun. All of that, and where's the systemic racism? Its not direct, but disadvantaged minorities are: less likely to pass the lifetime criminal record check (got in a fight when you were 19?), less likely to be able to take two weekends getting licensed, less likely to be able to afford the mandatory fees, and less likely to have a job where you can go and sit on hold for a while, waiting to get to the front of the queue.

While it's not explicitly racist, shooting (especially restricted) is definitely not a sport that is particularly accessible across socio-economic backgrounds.



I believe your mistake is using the term racism when you mean to say classism or elitist.


Systematic racism doesn't require a person somewhere saying "I hate black people" - it merely requires that the system be unfair towards people, correlated with their skin color.

Systematic racism could affect someone because the history of oppression against their race has resulted in them being born to a family that constantly gets evicted from homes due to poverty, which exacerbates the poverty for them and their eventual offspring, which means that the history of oppression against their race continues indefinitely.


Correlation vs. causation. Just because an inequality exists, doesn't mean it's caused by systemic oppression.


Black people in America experience more poverty than white people because of systematic racism.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02...

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ld6aYU...

Even Ben and Jerry's knows this to be true: https://www.benjerry.com/home/whats-new/2016/systemic-racism...

Would you like to present your alternative theory for why black people in America experience more poverty than white people?


I think the bigger question is why does Ben and Jerry's have a page discussing systemic racism on their website. Isn't that a few astronomical units outside the scope of their business?


They are very active in progressive causes. Perhaps when they sold the company to Unilever they negotiated some deal that allows them to continue to use Ben and Jerry website for their activism?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: