Previous Post
Next Post

Neighborhood Watch Death

Let me just say this from the beginning: this “study” is complete BS. And I don’t say that from an ideological point of view, I say that as someone who respects things like truth and logic. NPR is touting this recent “study” (published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology) as proof that people are racist and more willing to shoot a black person than a white person, but there are a few major issues.

A new meta-analysis set out to answer that question. Yara Mekawi of the University of Illinois and her co-author, Konrad Bresin, drew together findings from 42 different studies on trigger bias to examine whether race affects how likely a target is to be shot.

“What we found is that it does,” Mekawi tells NPR’s Arun Rath. “In our study we found two main things: First, 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.”

That is, shooters weren’t just faster to fire at black targets; they were also more likely to fire at a black target.

They also correlated the results with the Brady Campaign scores and “found” that states with less restrictive gun laws had people who were more likely to shoot black people.

[We] coded the cities in which the data was collected by how permissive the gun laws were. And we used the Brady Law campaign, which gives basically states a score … being very permissive, this means that, you know, they didn’t require background checks in the same way that other, more strict states might or have other limitations on who’s allowed to purchase a gun. …

Basically, what we found was that in states that had relatively permissive gun laws, the shooting threshold for black targets was lower than for white targets.

So, issues.

This “study” is a “meta analysis” of fifty research studies undertaken by budding psychologists at various universities. For those who aren’t familiar with the way these studies work, psychology students come up with ridiculous premises for studies (typically designed to appeal to their liberal professors and get as much publicity as possible), and then professors coerce their students to participate in exchange for class credit. So right off the bat the premise of the research is fairly biased, as the entire point is to be as controversial as possible.

For this specific study no actual direct observation was done. Instead, the researchers simply gathered up about fifty different studies and directly compared their results. As the researchers themselves admit, the results weren’t always the same.

Laboratory shooter tasks have yielded mixed results regarding racial shooter biases

Comparing different studies from different researchers that have had different results and trying to get a cohesive answer? Yeah, awesome, good luck with that. The only criteria they had for including the studies was that they had the participants making quick decisions about whether the person was holding a gun.

Our inclusion criteria was pretty much that they used what’s called a first-person shooter task. … Participants are generally told that police officers are often put in high-stress situations where they have to make very quick shooting decisions.

And so they are presented with images of targets from various races that either have a gun or have some kind of neutral object. So, sometimes it’s a soda can; other times it’s a cellphone. And what they’re told is, to make the decision to shoot when they see a target with a gun.

They are given less than a millisecond to respond, and if they don’t respond quickly enough, they get a little error message saying, “Please make the decision faster.”

Laboratory settings don’t necessarily translate to real life scenarios. That should be obvious, but I guess psychology students aren’t the best people for figuring out common sense things. You know, little common sense stuff like determining which major is most likely to get you a good job.

Speaking of the laboratory setting, it’s interesting to note that there were apparently no firearms actually used in these tests. Subjects were placed at a computer and asked to hit two different buttons (“shoot” and “no shoot”) depending on what they saw. Is there a psychological difference between pressing a button and pulling a trigger? Milgram says yes (and is the only thing I still remember from Psych 101). So again we don’t have a 1:1 correlation between what is being tested and what the “researchers” are claiming. That’s like asking someone to choose between a banana and an apple for dinner and claiming that choosing a banana proves they are a racist.

The final nail in the coffin: of all the “studies” they “studied,” only one had an average participant age over 21. So in the vast majority of cases the participants were too young to purchase a handgun, let alone carry a concealed firearm. This study might prove that college kids are afraid of black people, but without actually studying the populations you care about (gun owners, police officers, military members) you can’t get an accurate result.

That would be like doing a survey of Germans and using that to determine the outcome of Greece’s election. Doing a “study” on college kids who probably don’t own a gun and are at a sufficiently liberal bastion of education that they have a psychology department willing to green light this kind of thing aren’t really representative of the American population.

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop NPR from latching onto this “study” like a fat kid on cake. Not because of the rigorous science behind the research, but because the results match their bias. “Gun owners hate black people! Black people are more likely to be shot! Avoid everywhere that isn’t New York or California!” Right.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Wow, that’s not going to fan the flame of the huge increase in racial tensions as of late. Not at all

  2. Just put up a picture of a standard target. It is black. It is easy to see. It has nothing to do with people. QED

    • Agreed. The paper is white, so if a white target is printed on there it is hard to see at 25yds, much easier to shoot a black printed target.

    • I mostly use Shoot ‘n’ Cee or Dirty Bird targets. All start out black. I don’t know how you’d make them any other color and get the same effect.

    • Yeah, I must admit the most targets I have shot were black. Some were orange and some were coke cans and pop bottles (shame on me), but most were black. And for further confirmation, I tried really hard not to shoot any of the white on the target, even on the orange ones.

  3. NPR and Journal of Experimental Psychology are more likely to lie to suit their own purposes than yours.
    NPR and Journal of Experimental Psychology are more likely to lie to sell something that otherwise wouldn’t survive sunlight.
    NPR and Journal of Experimental Psychology are more likely to lie to publish something.
    NPR and Journal of Experimental Psychology are more likely to lie (by a slight margin) than some of their liberal counterparts.
    NPR and Journal of Experimental Psychology are more likely to lie than tell you the truth.
    NPR and Journal of Experimental Psychology are more likely to lie.

  4. “They are given less than a millisecond to respond, and if they don’t respond quickly enough, they get a little error message saying, “Please make the decision faster.””

    Less than a millisecond? So, did every single test get the error message or did this study manage to find people with inhumanly fast reaction times? A quick non-scientific google search tells me that the average human response time is 215 milliseconds. I’m guessing NPR just didn’t do their research. Again.

  5. The study did give the participants 1 second not 1 millisecond and NPR did print a correction to that.

      • IMO Nick should have noted that. Not everyone is going to go to the NPR site much less pay to see the actual study.

    • Well, somebody jumped on their stuff about it then, I won’t believe it was an accident. Saying “a second” is pretty easy, you have to think about a millisecond. Deliberate lie.

  6. So, NPR promotes an entirely “academic” (as in unrelated to anything approaching reality) exercise as revealing a profound truth which just coincidentally confirms their cherished fantasy of gun owners as trigger-happy white racists (BTW, did they control for the race of the “shooters”? I didn’t see that). As my daughter-in-law would say, wow, what are the odds?

  7. And all this time I’ve been using white paper with black outlines, and full size prints of white felons. So does that make me and my students anti-racist, or is it reverse racism? Inquiring minds would like to know (not really).

    • What, you don’t have access to the full sized color pics of zombies and such? I get such a kick out of blasting the walking dead or vampires etc.

  8. “They also correlated the results with the Brady Campaign scores and “found” that states with less restrictive gun laws had people who were more likely to shoot black people.” Using any data from the Anti-gun Brady Bunch puts the entire study in a very precarious position. That group is certainly very biased and anything they put out is likely to be the same. NOT a scientific study based on facts but a propaganda piece to scare people and give more ammo to the anti-gun groups.

    • I live in Austin, and my study of news reports says people in Chicago are MUCH more likely to shoot black people than people in Austin are. And in Chicago the shooters are also black. Does this study infer those poor shooters are somehow racist, along with being drug-crazed killers? How unfeeling.

  9. I thought these studies were supposed to employ the scientific method and approximate real scenarios as closely as possible, not study other people’s studies where you don’t have control over the method and variables. I’d like to call this junk science but is it even science?

    • Of course it isn’t science. But that doesn’t matter.

      We have several generations of Americans now that think that because they have “heard of” the Big Bang that they “know” Physics. They think recognizing a Periodic Table means they are Chemists and that they once actually passed a (watered down) math test that they understand data analysis and statistical representations of measured data.

      Our “education” system has created a population of people that don’t actually understand what ‘science’ is, how it is done or anything having to do with observe-analyze but think they do.

      I read a very interesting article on this from a historian’s perspective not very long ago. The dude was talking about how knowledge is no longer valued, taught or sought, but that meta-information and knowing ABOUT something’s existence (rather than actually knowing about the thing) has replaced true knowledge. He called it “Water Cooler Pop-Culture Pseudo Facts” or something to that effect.

      His main point what that the social appearance of LOOKING LIKE you know something is now viewed as more important than actually knowing ANYTHING AT ALL. For example, recognizing the name Christopher Columbus and having an idea that he did something of note (so you can “talk about it around the water cooler) has replaced the importance of knowing what he did and when he did it.

      This is expanded many fold when you factor in the notion of “pop culture.” Knowing trivial nonsense about, well, anything is deemed more important than understanding.

      Getting it back to science, then, it is very clear to see how a “Study” like this can gain some traction. It has no substance, but that doesn’t matter. NPR and the HuffPo crowd can now quote the “Study” as if it is gospel. They know it exists, it purports to say something they want to say (thereby committing a nice, tidy little Appeal to Authority Fallacy), and they get to ‘sound smart’ by saying “There’s a study that says…” without EVER having had actually read it, looked at the data or thought one minute about what might be right, or wrong, about this “study.”

      Knowing the study exists is all that matters. So they can talk about it around the (literal and figurative) water cooler.

      • Side note: it is exactly this same type of pseudo-scientific “meta-study”, fraught with all the same errors, that was used to create the equally bogus claim that there is a “97% consensus” regarding climate change.

        • Bingo. That is another excellent example.

          There never has been “consensus” on AGW at all; but the word “consensus” has become its own snowball, with its own weight and PERCEIVED importance.

          It is truly amazing how controlling the language of an issue leads to controlling the issue. We do well to remember that in the 2A fight.

        • Climate change is real, Chip! It is also called “weather”, and occurs dozens of times each year. “Dear, I have it on good authority that the climate is going to change between now and December.”

        • There is nothing inherently wrong with a meta analysis. Such studies can be quite useful for taking stock of the literature in various areas (e.g., in assessing the effects of a drug across numerous clinical trials). The main issue is how you decide which studies to include, and how they are weighted (e.g., studies that are double-blind should get more weight than those which are not, studies with larger sample sizes should have more weight than those with small sample sizes, etc.). But making the rules for weighting and inclusion is tricky since it can have a huge impact. Off topic, but I see a great deal of venom thrown at the technique in general, which is probably misplaced. One thing that is safe to say: you generally don’t do a meta analysis unless you have contradictory results, which means that you are dealing with a relatively small effect and/or the results are method-dependent.

          Anyway, as to the current analysis, none of the flaws Nick pointed out need be fatal, though it is certainly important to point out the limitations in generalizing lab studies to the real world (which is something that doesn’t get much attention in press releases; simple stories get more attention which is indeed what the press game is all about).

          All that aside, I didn’t see the most important issue discussed: Why the hell are we talking about lab studies which are questionable models of the real world when there are actual, real world data available? Last I saw, the stats on police shootings showed that shootings of black suspects were roughly proportional to their rate of participation in violent crime. So, what were we talking about again? Oh, yeah: lab models of a problem that doesn’t actually occur in the real world. Masturbation at best, naked leftist agitprop in practice.

          It’s the same thing they do every time concealed carry is legalized somewhere. They cite some lab study which suggests that guns being present makes it more likely for people to be violent, and wring their hands about blood in the streets. The proper answer is: The experiment has been done in the real world, with variation, in more than 40 states. It. Just. Doesn’t. Happen.

          So to all the psychologists trying to get noticed: Keep your laboratory studies of problems that don’t actually occur in the real out of the arena of political discourse. There are plenty of actual problems to be solved without worrying about imaginary ones.

  10. They never specified whether any of the test subjects were black and, if so, were their test results different.

    • BINGO! Cause this Black gun owner wants to know:

      If Black folk were also tested, and they shot targets of Black people holding guns, does that mean Black gun owners hate Black folk, too?

  11. And yet, 94% of black homicide victims are killed by black assailants – and likewise, 85% of white homicide victims are killed by white assailants.

    Compared to the 2% of society – young black males – killing each other, the inter-racial homicide rate variations of essentially every other cohort are not statistically significant.

    Junk data are junk.

    • And yet, 94% of black homicide victims are killed by black assailants – and likewise, 85% of white homicide victims are killed by white assailants

      If I recall correctly, the percentage of the US population that is black is about 15%, which would indicate that the white shooters are almost perfectly non-bigoted, but the black shooters are clearly anti-black.

      (OK, I know there are a million problems with that statement, if you insist on taking it seriously.)

      • But the committers of homicide are roughly 10:1 male:female, across all races (Per FBI UCR).

        So it’s not the roughly 15% of the US population that is black committing 50% of all homicides. Its the ~5% that are black males under the age of 50. And as noted, the people who have to be most concerned about that statistic, are the other black people who make up the vast majority of their victims.

  12. Just wait until one of the anti-gunner morons goes into a gun store and finds out that all official NRA targets have black scoring areas. Wow. The evidence of systemic racism just keeps showing up if you only know where to look.

    Of course, the next question is “why are traditional targets black” has never been asked. I don’t shoot at black targets much. Older eyes and black sights on black targets is not a good confidence builder. So, I guess that makes me not a racist because I shoot at white or orange targets? Perhaps it means I harbor a deep-seated fear of pumpkins, no doubt from some early childhood experience of Charlie Brown specials during Halloween.

    So, why are targets black? Pretty simple answer. Because they are printed. Until quite recently, say in past 30-50 years, printing non-black was both very expensive (color costs money, as does multiple runs through a press to build up color images). Funny thing about those racist NRA targets in the gun store – they are usually the cheapest targets on sale. Because they are printed using the cheapest paper and ink of all the other targets.

    Aw, screw it. I guess to prove I’m not a racist I’ll just pass by the targets at Sportsman’s Warehouse and go to Kroger to pick a tall stack of 9″ paper plates. White paper plates. Lily-white paper plates. Pure-as-the-driven-snow-white paper plates. I’m thinking I ticked that box.

    Then I’ll go to the range later and shoot. Drive my silver (nothing to see here folks) pick up. Shoot my black guns. Damn! I really don’t want to pay more for tan or green. Cerakote the rascals a racially neutral color, perhaps? What’s a fellow to do? At least I’m not wearing black clothes – too hot this time of year in the sunny altitude in New Mexico. Even my shoes are neutral. Except the soles. Double damn! Soles are black – yet more evidence of my unwitting oppression!

    Life is hard in post-racial America.

    • Wide white walls were all the rage in the late 20s-60s. Even though the white rubber was technically under the black, how do I view that for maximum imaginary oppression?

  13. Good, the white parts are usually non-scoring. I like knowing folks out there are decent shots.

    Up until fairly recently most soldiers in the UK and a fair few NATO countries would be more likely to shoot gray Nazi’s than anything else.

  14. “That is, shooters weren’t just faster to fire at black targets; they were also more likely to fire at a black target.”

    Well, in that case, if I ever get mugged, I hope it’s a black guy so my chances of defending myself are greater do to the fact that I will act faster.

  15. I use shoot-n-see targets quite a lot. Does that mean I hate ravers? If I don’t shoot black targets, does that mean I think my bullets are too good for them?

    Maybe, the reason that most black targets get shot is because things that are black keep making targets out of themselves? Maybe, I’d shoot a black target because its what’s coming at me trying to kill me for the crime of being born white?

    Studies, whatever… These people aren’t even trying t make their lies believable anymore. It’s obvious BS. Those going along with it are those who know it’s BS, too, and just want the excuse to keep by psychopaths.

    What if I slap a shoot-n-see on a white paper plate? Do I hate Pudding Pops?

  16. Science:
    1. Start with a hypothesis
    2. Test the hypothesis
    3. Observe and record the results.

    Junk Science:
    1. Start with an agenda
    2. Gather or fabricate data
    3. Manipulate data until it fits the agenda

    • You know, that’s not just tongue in cheek (for anyone that might doubt).

      I once (briefly) dated a woman in a ‘soft science’ field. I was in grad school at the time…in a ‘hard science.’ We did not get to interject opinions into our papers at all. Something was either measured or it wasn’t.

      She and I got into a very heated argument about what “science is.” My thesis: science is measurement, observation and classification/reduction of data.

      Her belief: Science is “You have something to prove then you set out to prove it. You design an experiment to show what you want to prove.”

      She fully believed that…could not shake her from it. I tried using terms like “objective.” No go.

      That’s one anecdote; however, the bulk of soft, social science that I have seen in the present day absolutely supports the hypothesis that most believe as she did.

      And don’t even get me started on pseudo-sciences (like “evolutionary psychology”) masquerading as real science. Stuff like that is nothing but PURE speculation…yet they get “respect” because they use neato, geeky sciencey sounding words a lot.

      • “You have something to prove then you set out to prove it. You design an experiment to show what you want to prove.”

        In all seriousness, who the eff allowed her to pass any middle-school level science class? Who didn’t flunk her out of HS? What science prof let her stay in that class?

      • She’s actually almost correct, except that it should be “prove or disprove”. It’s not at all wrong to start with a hypothesis, and it needn’t be something obviously derived from the data – it can well be just a hunch, or even your favorite theory. But then you need to subject it to experimental verification in such a way that the result of your experiment can either support or disprove your hypothesis – and you go along with the result, whatever it is .

        • int19h, When she just says ‘prove’, you know the results going to be about as valid as a pharma trial – cherry picked data, subjects dropped from the tests when they start show side effects, the usual chicanery.

  17. Activism + science = politicization. It’s surprisingly easy to have “science” without the kind of methodological rigor leads to discovery and invention. What you get is low-level empiricism that pretends to be more than it is. The temptation to do this is great, especially among junior faculty struggling to gain tenure. “Research” confirming what is already known really isn’t science, although to the uninitiated or disinterested it may look like science. Do we really need psychological studies telling us that motel customers tend to prefer comfortable beds to uncomfortable beds or that sports fans get excited when they watch games?

  18. As has already been said, this stance was pretty thoroughly demolished by Washington State University – Spokane.

    I wonder if NPR mentioned the WSU study when it was published.

  19. The only time the NPR article uses person in reference to the target is the first sentence “Are most people more likely to pull the trigger of a gun if the person they’re shooting at is black?”

    Going by the title and the continued use of target, I can’t help but think they are actually talking about paper targets, the majority of which of course are black. From the humble NRA bulls eye target (SEE WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED THAT ITS AN NRA CONSPIRACY!!!!) to the classic silhouette they are all black.

    It’s simply disgusting that we as representatives of the gun culture do not advocate for equality in target color. MOST black targets are innocent and hardworking but are disproportionately represented as targets because of the institutionalized norm that is shooting black targets. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!


  20. These fact studies were set up to get the desired results. If black lives really matter why do so any black women abort their babies? And why do so many black men shoot each other etc etc etc. The media just needs to stop covering these things

  21. In the interests of racial harmony, I hereby promise to shoot anyone who breaks down my door, regardless of their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, height, weight, eye color, skin color, hair color, teeth color, bad clothing choices, disabilities, age, degree of stupidity, baldness or the heartbreak of psoriasis.

    The same promise shall not apply if the person breaking down my door is trying to get out instead of trying to get in.

  22. NPR is paid for largely by the “Corporation for Public Broadcasting” (which is itself a federal-entity & funded almost entirely by Congressional appropriations), and to a lesser extent by state/municipal grants, and donations from wealthy liberals & their own special-interest foundations. The CPB’s 9-person board of directors are themselves appointed by the President & confirmed by Congress (5 of them being raging blue-blood liberals, the remainder being paid-for RINOs)
    And given that the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 requires the CPB to fund minority producers (via five different minority consortiums), with private donors to NPR raising holy hell whenever they hear overtly conservative commentary on their precious airwaves, it is no surprise that NPR is nothing but an echo-chamber for the Left’s feckless propaganda and willful disinformation.

    • No, it is not majority Fed funded. NPR receives about 10% of funding from the CPB. About 6% from other Fed agencies for various sundry things. Total about 16%. Private donations are about 35% and corporations about 20%. Interestingly colleges are almost the same as the gov at around 13% if memory serves.

      NPR is oft-times an echo chamber of liberal educated East Coasties, who have been brainwashed their entire lives on some topics to the point of delusion and ignoring science. That said, on many other topics, they’re the only place in US mass media you get anything even resembling science. Am I very disappointed in NPR’s re-tilting to a ludicrously unbalanced look at guns? Of course. But I do remember the first time I heard an interview with John Lott that was completely level-headed and not a fluff piece – on NPR. They have waxed and waned on the balanced analysis of firearms ownership. The current phase is pretty lousy, but it changes every time the Pres is replaced. Which is about every 12 months…

  23. Bloomberg himself, while mayor of NYC, said that arrest statistics showed that 90% of the crime was committed by black people, and that is why he supported the useful but politically incorrect stop and frisk policy. If the police and the most anti-gun mayor in the country know that the likelihood of let’s say a black person in a hoodie being more likely a criminal than a white person in a hoodie, then is this bias? Or is it more like a natural sense of self-preservation?

    I don’t intend to pay $35 for a “meta-analysis”. It would be interesting if a controlled experiment were done with laser pistols or air pistols using people of different racial backgrounds with the same facial expression dressed in exactly the same clothing holding a gun, a knife, or a harmless object. And then control for the “race” but change the clothing. Put the same model in a business suit, a pair of overalls, a police uniform, ISIS robes, and a hoodie; put a gun in his hand, and see which target(s) are shot the most by the people being tested. And make it real. Tell them that they are in a shopping center parking lot. At least these would be controlled experiments. Even so, I am not sure that “bias” could be proven, when in this case the crime statistics really do not lie.

    • Stop and frisk went a little past politically incorrect and into full blown illegal. At least in so far as my limited understanding og the constitution goes.

      After all, I’m not a constitutional scholar like the potus or kapo bloomberg.

  24. I think this may be a study more suited to optical characteristics of the human eye, contrast, rods and cones ratios.

    The relentless unfounded attacks create greater avenues for violence, the exact opposite from what these anti-2A groups seek.

  25. I’ve often wondered why black people are called “black”. It used to be “colored” and “negro”. Very few are actually black. Bronze, tan, or maybe brown, might be better suited, although brown might have already been taken. My wife, who is Asian is darker skinned than many “black” people.
    Point is: If black people were called something other than black, they probably would not be so offended when white folks refer to to the color, or shade of “black”, whether referring to targets, guns, or whatever!
    Just curious, no racism intended.

  26. Tis reminds of a blow up many years ago on the Dallas City Council. A white guy said something about things disappearing into a “Black Hole” and the black council member threw a fit thinking that he meant “Black Ho”.

  27. Am reminded of a study regarding trench coats. Same person changed outerwear. Those wearing light-colored trench coats received much better treatment and scored higher on a trust scale than those wearing dark ones. Conclusion of research was to wear a light colored coat to job interviews and customer meetings.

    Just like the movies, the villain is always in dark colors and the protagonist in light.

    Racial bias? Not sure allied studies support that conclusion. And the astute comments here are enlightening.

    Bias against blacks racial issues does seem to be gaining an enormous amount of attention these days versus say asians or latins. I’m puzzled because racial issues seem much less pronounced than when ‘Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?’ was startling. Fergusson after-shocks? Have asked some of the upper-middle class black guys at the range and they aren’t sure either.

  28. There is no such thing as an unbiased study, they will show the results the authors are looking for. What a waste of time.

  29. Well, black people are more likely to be criminals, so I suppose those targets are going to be shot more, even by black subjects. Sort of like Chicago.
    Actually , there was a study similar to this where tests were done to see if people became more nervous around certain other types of people. Everybody, including black males became more nervous with other unknown black males.

    • “Well, black people are more likely to be criminals”
      I would have never believed that if 90%, or so, of all the “suspects” shown in news clips weren’t black. I haven’t kept count, but this seems hold true from my memory, of all the video’s shown on TTAG, and elsewhere, since I have been on this blog.
      Again, not trying to be racists, just my observation.

  30. Once you go black-you never go back. Gee I have been attacked several times by black men-yet I am happily married to a beautiful black woman. What would this “science” have to say about that? Stupid is as stupid does…

  31. The study may be junk, but there are numerous others that show unconscious racial bias in other scenarios, so it’s a valid hypothesis, and it would be good to test it properly.

    To give an example of such other studies, one involved sending resumes with exact same experience, education etc to a bunch of companies, but changing names such that one is a common English name, typical for a white guy – say, “Daniel” – and the other is unambiguously black – say, “DeShawn”. Then they observed the rates of HR departments calling back to schedule the interview.

    Turns out that “Daniel” gets 1 call for every 10 resumes, while “DeShawn” gets 1 call for every 15 – on the same exact resume! Ironically, it doesn’t matter whether the companies specifically advertised that they’re an “equal opportunity employer” or not.

    For comparison, for “DeShawn” to improve his rate to the same level, he had to add 8 more years of experience to his resume over what “Daniel” had…

    (Similar studies were also done with Asian, Eastern European, Latino etc names, and they all show some degree of bias, though Blacks have it worst.)

  32. Some of the disarmed people murdered by the governments of the world, Christians Rome, Jews Nazi Germany, Aztecs Spanish, Maori of NZ and Aboriginals Australia, Scottish William Wallace, the Irish, Welsh by English and the Native America by the US government. THIS is why we need guns to protect ourselves from those who would subject us to their whim and if this is not enough just google dictators.There are over 400 gun laws on the books and they have done nothing to stop the violence because of the winey few. We are chastised for wanting to protect ourselves. We NEED guns to protect ourselves from criminals in and out of the government. I deserve the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough shit.

  33. So since the people they “studied” were all young people from universities the only conclusion we can then draw is that liberal university students are racist 😉

Comments are closed.