Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Guns are for white people. Racism is for journalists.

Written By: Bob - Jul• 30•13

This is just sad and pathetic, and as an American culture, I demand that we do better:

There are pictures of guys with guns, gals with guns, animals with guns, ammo with guns and guns with guns. Curiously absent are pictures of black people with guns, brown people with guns or Asian people with guns. The good guys are white. The bad guys are white. In the Gunworld depicted in these pages, pretty much everyone is white.

This point was so striking, in fact, that I decided to count the faces in the ads and stories, figuring arithmetic would refute a lazy first impression. Including illustrations and photos, here’s my tally:

Combat Handguns Magazine, November 2013

Whites: 92
Blacks: 1
Hispanics: 1
Asian: 1

Interestingly, both the (light-skinned) black guy and the Hispanic guy are wearing uniforms — don’t worry, folks, they’re on our side! The Asian is dressed in a suit and tie and is clearly presented as a law enforcement or high-end security professional.

Guns & Weapons Magazine, October 2013

Whites: 131
Blacks: 2 (both law enforcement officers, one of whom is accompanied by 4 whites)
Hispanics: 0
Asians: 0

GUNS Magazine, September 2013

Whites: 60
Blacks: 0
Hispanics: 0
Asians: 2 (Does it still count if they’re Japanese soldiers from WW II in an ad for military surplus?)

It’s hard to know exactly what to infer from this blizzard of white. Gun politics is always racially fraught. Blacks commit firearms offenses at a much higher rate than whites. In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 14.6 per 100,000 compared with 4 for Hispanics, 1.9 for whites and 1.0 for Asians and Pacific Islanders. In general, blacks also support gun control much more strenuously than whites.

It’s not “hard to know exactly what to infer” at all. Gun magazines are racist, and so are the rest of the media, just for very different reasons.

Gun magazines (and perhaps more tellingly, their advertisers) are terrified of having any minority presented in even the slightest possibly offensive way, and so, in their fear, they present almost no minorities at all. It’s apparently safer to exclude them, than it is to include them and risk offending “someone.”

How is this good for us as a shooting culture, or for us as a Republic?

The author of the article is racist in the different way, like most of her peers in the media: she can’t help but assert that when a person of color has a gun, it is because a criminal act is imminent.

Both of these messages are offensive, and are in need of reform. The simple fact of the matter is that there are many minority shooters that are just as enthusiastic about guns and shooting as we are. Colion Noir is not as much an anomaly as some would like you to think. We work with minority shooters, and count them among our neighbors. We can’t allow the gun media culture to be monochromatic out of fear that some slimy racist progressive activist is going to gin up outrage over manufactured slights. Messaging is subtle, but powerful, and we can not afford as a culture to unfairly discriminate, for any reason.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

18 Comments

  1. Old Gringo says:

    14 guys at the range last monday. 4 white. 2 black. 3 hispanic. 5 asian. Rangemaster is Hispanic. Live in Norcal.

  2. Comrade X says:

    Something more like this Bob;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHeWhdXPe0

    Death before slavery!

  3. Steven says:

    It’s not unlike how the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) made hiring disabled folk a dicey proposition for employers and the act decreased hiring for disabled folk.

    It’s not unlike how many / some employers are hesitant in hiring minorities or women (esp if they had a womyn’s or ethnic studies in their CV) due to fears of that person having an agenda.

    The magazines are AFRAID – but not malicious, I think.

    The reporter, who is steeped in PC politics, and has probably noticed these very things I mentioned in paragraph 1 & 2, can’t (or won’t due to who she is reporting on) make the mental connect the dots on this.

    Steven

  4. Steven says:

    Oh, on a slightly related note to my last post: Look at Michelle Obama. She was hired by some white glove law firm and her FIRST YEAR she mentions that the pictures of the senior partners is awfully short of women and of color.

    Now – full stop – most people don’t realize that a 1st year grad is scum at law firms. You either don’t have your law degree, or just got it and are just about useless. By year 2 you are finally STARTING to learn your chosen sub-field, and it’s not until about year 3 that the INVESTMENT they made in you (paying your useless ass for 3 years while you were learning OJT) starts to pay off.

    For a first year grad to say something like that is a huge red flag.

    My Point: By / at the end of her first year she parted company with that firm and went on to become “special assistant to the mayor” (wtf is that?). No law firm pours that kind of money into you and then lets you go / asks you to go unless you’re a serious problem.

    They probably figured they had an angry, agitating, entitled racist who was going to find some way to feel discriminated against and was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

    So they golden handshake’d her out – glowing recommendation, patronage political job, and their headache is gone – and is now OUR headache.

    PC politics is toxic to racial integration and reconcilliation – and it’s by design.

  5. Steven says:

    Errr – typo ^^^

    Meant to write: My Point: By / at the end of her **THIRD** year – (Not first).

    Fast typing hands and no preview on my part.

  6. Kev says:

    I don’t see why it’s automatically racist not to have pics of one race or another in a magazine. Most magazines cater to one demographic or another. Perhaps research by the magazine and/or its advertisers show that only one specific race is paying for its product. If we open up black magazines, do we see lots of pics of Asian people? Indians? Do black people purchase lots of gun products? We know as a group they don’t have a high net worth. Are they the ‘new gun purchase’ demographic? Is it worth it for advertisers to have black models in their ads? Should there be affirmative action for ads? Is there? Should Conservatives be writing articles about how racist Ebony Magazine is for not having more Asians in their ads?

  7. Right_2_Bear says:

    Why does everything today have to have a race angle? Can’t we just carry on without being offended so easily or stirring the pot?

    BTW, Colion Noir has been terrific these last several months defending gun rights against the gun grabbers. We need more of his kind regardless of race or skin color.

  8. Mr Wolf, non-ESQ says:

    Ok, I get this angle. So I did me some checking thru the OTHER stuff I look at a lot besides guns. I did it by percentages:

    White: 98%
    Black: 1.2%
    Asian: .1%
    Hispanic: .1%

    Of course, this being porn, I may not have caught it all. But the ratio’s are about the same, for me anyway. Does this make me racist?

    • Steven says:

      Um, I think your % of Asian might be a bit off. Just sayin’ (smirk)

      That’s a Primary catagory for many Joes.

  9. chow says:

    I’ve been going to gun shows since the 1970’s when the largest gun show in the world was the “Great Western Americana” held twice a year in the LA county fairgrounds in Pomona, CA. All these years I seldom see blacks attending these shows so I will associate blacks to have no interest in guns nor reading gun magazines not along writing about guns. Asians on the other hand are plentiful when it comes to guns (majority of which are Filipino’s I think). There was a time in the 1990’s when a Filipino won the IPSC and was written about in gun magazines and there was also a Filipino writer in the “Firepower” magazine when it was published. Nowadays, there aren’t any more famous minorities in the gun world so it’s understandable that they’re not being represented in gun magazines. We sure don’t want to misrepresent them like blacks in the movies as fictional character just to be politically correct.

  10. John Doe says:

    The outdoor range I frequent here in Cali (LA county area) always has a good mix of Hispanic and Asian shooters. Minority to white ratio is about 40/60. I’m half Korean with some Sioux Indian and euro trash thrown in for good measure.

    Hispanic shooters seem to be a younger demographic. While Asian seem to be of all ages. I believe the older Asians seems to understand the right to bear arms and its importance better than most minorities.

    • rumcrook™ says:

      Ive noticed that too. young asians coming to the range with girlfriends in a big group and bringing the firepower.

      of course who could ever forget the photos of korean liquor store owners in command of the roof tops during the L.A. uprising.

  11. Treker says:

    White America is scared to death . When I go to gun shows I notice that they are 90% white . Most of the private firearms sold are overpriced junk. You still can’t find ammo in Walmart. If our nation is not at war then what is it ? Will we look back on this period and say we went through the great antebellum time line ?

  12. UncleKenny says:

    My mother used to say, after us kids ignored her calling us to wherever it was we were supposed to be, “do I have to give you a special invitation?” Well, it turns out that there is a segment of our community that does require a special invitation to buy advertised products. If the ads don’t have black people, then black people won’t buy. Take McDonald’s for example. Some years ago, McDonald’s was race hustled into pointing a substantial portion, if not a majority, of their advertising at black people. It turns out that white people will still buy Big Macs, regardless of who is in the ads, so it costs McDonald’s nothing to comply with the race hustlers. This is when the content of the ads became a measure of the racism of the advertisers. Welcome to the new America.

    • Lex says:

      It’s called 365-Black & well documented at un_PC sites such as SBPDL and others.

      As such, I ate my last McD’s some time ago. I will not be feeding that Beast again. Ever.

  13. Cole says:

    I’m not sure pictures in gun magazines are the place to lure minorities into the gun culture. I don’t know how gun magazines operate but I imagine most of their photos aren’t stock. They probably photograph themselves or friends. And advertisers are going to chase their main customer base.

    Colion Noir isn’t an anomaly when it comes to black gun ownership. But he is an anomaly in terms of black gun journalists. There aren’t many.

    Like I said it isn’t up to the magazines. Affirmative action photography is silly. If we want more blacks in gun literature then more blacks will have to take up hunting, competitive shooting, and journalism. That’s who is in the magazines. Maybe it’s up to us to encourage that. Maybe it’s not our problem. They are adults after all. Why infantilize them by assuming they need photos of other black people to attend an IDPA match.

  14. billo says:

    It might be appropriate to look at who *buys* the magazines. It doesn’t matter who uses guns; advertising is directed towards the people who read the magazines. I bet if you looked at the ads in Ebony or Jett, you’d see disproportionately high numbers of African-Americans represented. That’s appropriate, because the those mags are predominately read by African-Americans.

    That being the case, then you have to look beyond simple race quotas and look to other demographics, such as age. I don’t know any 20-something who reads Guns magazine.

    The odd demographics of some of these magazines can be striking. There was a research paper published a number of years ago that purported to show that gun ownership was associated with a greater chance of being a victim of crime by using “Guns & Ammo” subscription rate as a surrogate for gun ownership in a community. It turned out that the demographic that read that magazine was very skewed — upper income white males who owned an average of 15 firearms and who lived in areas of lower general gun ownership — areas with higher Guns&Ammo subscription was associated with *lower* gun ownership in the surrounding neighborhood, which meant that the finding was actually the opposite of that published. The positive association of crime with subscription rate did *not* work with three other popular magazines.

    That being said, I agree that the firearm-friendly community should be inclusive. The NRA program to emphasize women seems to have been productive.

  15. Anon says:

    Reach out to black (Rev.) Kenn Blanchard, podcaster and author of Black Man with a Gun. He’s ecumenical and shoots/trains with people of all skin types. He’s super-friendly, a family man. I’ll bet he could whip up a pro-black-gun-ownership article or series, if the gun mags aren’t afraid to publish it.