Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

JPFO Alert: A Truly Progressive Solution to Cops Shooting Black Men

Today's JPFO Alert notes that although this "progressive" writer might not have entirely thought his theory out, it's better than most "progressive" solutions.

Still, now he's advocating carrying guns to effect positive social and political change. That would indicate that he acknowledges that armed private citizens can push the government in directions that the unarmed cannot. That, in turn, is what the Second Amendment has always been about.

And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I believe in equal rights for everyone, regardless of race. And I support the right of all honest, peaceable citizens (again, regardless of race) to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

That said, H.A. Goodman is either a liar or an idiot.

He makes it sound as if police are going around shooting innocent black men right and left. Actually, more white people than black are shot by police, and even if a disproportionate percentage of black men are shot, it does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing by the police. If black men are 6% of the population and 50% of the people shot by cops, it may just be because they are 50% of the criminals who assault cops, therefore they are 50% of the people whom cops were forced to shoot in self-defense.

"The solution to cops shooting black men" just might be for those "black men" to stop committing crimes, and to stop attacking police officers.

Anonymous said...

Goodman cites a PBS News Hour report that 16 out of 29 witnesses in Ferguson said that Michael Brown raised his hands before the cop shot him. He doesn't mention that the physical evidence proved that those "witnesses" were lying.

He also says that Brown had no prior record. That could just mean that he had never been caught before. Trayvon Martin had no criminal record, either, but he actually had a long history of criminal behavior (assault, drugs, vandalism, and burglary). The charges were always dropped, either because of the race card, or because local authorities were trying to downplay their crime statistics.

Anonymous said...

Robert Farago at The Truth About Guns asks, "What kind of criminal would openly carry a firearm?"

Answer: a stupid or crazy one. And when you go around in public with a weapon in plain sight, someone is going to call 911. And cops will be dispatched to answer that call. The police, and the people who called them, don't know your intentions. You could be an Open Carry activist, with no criminal intent. But, for all they know, you could be a homicidal maniac about to go on a shooting spree. Or just a mugger or carjacker who is too stupid to conceal his weapon.

I believe Open Carry activists (regardless of race) do more harm than good. They provoke needless confrontations with police, and they divert police resources. That is, when cops are tied up answering a "man with a gun" call (that turns out to be, in effect, a false alarm), they are not available to respond to real emergency calls.

Anonymous said...

Goodman and his ilk took the deaths of Delbert "Shorty" Belton, Fannie Gumbinger, Chris Lane, Julie Love, Simon Mitchell, Hoang Nguyen, and Catherine Genovese calmly enough, but a few justifiable and/or excusable homicides have them up in arms.

Even when the topic is limited to innocent people shot by law enforcement, I don't see protests or a lot of coverage in the MSM about Erik Scott, Jose Guerena, Dillon Taylor, or Vicki Weaver. "Black lives matter." White lives don't.

And, if you want to limit it to black victims of "gun violence," I never see people like Goodman getting outraged over innocent black people murdered by black criminals. "Black lives matter" when they are violent criminals shot in self-defense by cops or by honest citizens. Innocent black people killed by muggers and carjackers, not so much.

Race relations are better now than they were 60 years ago. But they are worse than they were seven years ago.

It's a sign of our times that the meme "black lives matter" (i.e., the lives of one race "matter" more than others), is politically correct, but saying "all lives matter" is considered racist.

Anonymous said...

When violent criminals (whether black or white) are shot (whether by police or by honest citizens) it is not a problem, and it needs no "solution." It is, in fact, a solution in itself.

I've seen statistics cited by anti-gun and anti-police fanatics claiming that justifiable homicides have increased in states with "shall issue" CCW policies and Stand Your Ground laws. Also, statistics claiming that a disproportionate number of blacks are shot by police, and that white people (both cops and private citizens) who shoot blacks are usually acquitted, while blacks who kill whites are often convicted.

The stats don't take into account the all-important matter of individual circumstances. Those blacks who were convicted were criminals who murdered innocent victims. The whites who were acquitted were innocent people who were forced to shoot violent assailants in self-defense.

And an increase in justifiable homicides is not a bad thing. A violent criminal shot dead is a violent criminal who has been taken out of circulation, permanently. More important, if the shooting was justified, it means that the shooter was the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack, and was in imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of being murdered. Therefore, the only alternative would have been for the innocent victim to get killed. Therefore, every justifiable homicide represents an innocent person's life saved.

The increase in justifiable homicides has coincided with a decrease in murders and rapes.

Meanwhile, those states with "tough gun control" have high crime rates. And in places like Seattle, where the Justice Department watches the police to make sure they show proper "sensitivity" toward the "black community," (i.e., the cops ignore suspicious behavior, and even retreat from criminals instead of using force), crime has increased.

Anonymous said...

Here's a thought when discussing "a solution to cops shooting black men."

"Do you know that Negroes are ten percent of the population of St. Louis, but account for 50% of its crime? We've got to address that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards. We know there are things wrong in the white world, but there are things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Anonymous said...

Goodman decries racism in the Ferguson Police Department, then cites a case of alleged racial profiling in the St. Louis County Police Department-a completely separate jurisdiction. WTF?

It's as if I accused CNN of right-wing bias, and then cited as evidence a remark made by a commentator on Fox News.

And the St. Louis lieutenant who ordered the "black day" was fired. I doubt if the Huffington Post or New York Times would do that good a job of policing their own ranks.

And Goodman cites a Washington Post article (or editorial?) that said that the Jennings (MO) Police Department was disbanded in 2011 because of racial tensions. "And one of the officers who lost his job, along with everyone else, was Darren Wilson." But they don't list any charges or allegations made against Wilson, individually.

Sounds more like a case of guilt by association and throwing out the baby with the bath water, than evidence of any wrongdoing by Wilson.