We may have officially reached the height of identity politics insanity. An organization named ‘No More Black Targets’ (NMBT) is now claiming that black silhouette shooting targets are racist. No, this is not satire.
“Young black men are 3X more likely to be shot by trained shooters than their white peers. A disturbing potential correlation: The most popular target for shooters to learn to use their firearm is a black silhouette. Unconscious bias can be deadly.”
Yes, that’s right. The “disturbing potential correlation” isn’t that blacks are statistically far more likely to have committed a violent crime, which could reasonably explain them being shot 3X as often as whites. It’s that “trained shooters” practice on silhouette targets. Targets that consist of a general outline of a human male figure, on a white piece of paper, filled in with black ink. Not black ink that’s the tint of a person of color, but a matte black, obviously used for contrast purposes.
They’ve come to this conclusion after performing a study that examined 42 other studies on racial shooting biases. In this study they found:
“…people were quicker to shoot black targets with a gun, relative to white targets with a gun. And…people were more trigger-happy when shooting black targets compared to shooting white targets.”
Okay…Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say their study indicates that trained shooters will shoot at black targets faster and with less hesitation.
What could this mean?
It might mean, and this is a stretch, that blacks are more likely to be shot quicker in possibly life threatening situations. Or more accurately, blacks might be shot quicker by a trained shooter, if the black guy jumped out of nowhere when the shooter was specifically waiting and expecting for a threat to appear with a gun.
It does not mean that blacks are more likely to be shot quicker specifically because “trained shooters” are taught using black silhouette targets. And it doesn’t mean we should enforce some PC, anti-silhouette target agenda.
This is blantantly moronic, so it makes one wonder what could possibly be next.
Will we study whether or not white “Sparring BOB” punching bags increase anti-white violence by trained MMA fighters? Or if Trump piñatas cause increased acceptance of violence towards a Republicans by 7 year Hispanic kids? Or are those just too far out there, and not quite in line with the agenda?