• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Huff Post - Black Men Openly Carrying Guns in Holsters Will End Racial Profiling

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,710
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/black-men-openly-carrying_b_6313176.html

SNIP

Contrary to conventional thinking on both sides of the political divide, more legal guns in the hands of law-abiding black men will defeat racism and end racial profiling in this country.

Specifically, openly carrying a handgun in a hip holster will serve as a sign to everyone (law enforcement, the Wal-Mart employees frightened that a black man is holding a Wal-Mart air gun, the paranoid neighborhood watchman, an average citizen on the street) that black men in this country don't correlate to the various prejudices Americans have towards dark skin.

. . .
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Specifically, openly carrying a handgun in a hip holster will serve as a sign to everyone (law enforcement, the Wal-Mart employees frightened that a black man is holding a Wal-Mart air gun, the paranoid neighborhood watchman, an average citizen on the street) that black men in this country don't correlate to the various prejudices Americans have towards dark skin.

. . .
Peaceful exercise of rights is a good thing.

But sadly a large number of black men are unable to legally exercise this right due to lifetime loss of rights for any felony conviction or domestic violence misdemeanor conviction. Why black men have such a higher rate of felony convictions than do white men (a black man is about 8x more likely to commit/be convicted of murder than is a white man) is a subject way off topic for this board.

But to the extent that there is a problem with police using excessive force, I wonder to what extent it is actually racially based, vs socially economically based. Last year here in Utah some under-cover, out-of-uniform cops shot a young woman dead as she backed out of parking spot in her car after she didn't obey their orders to stop. They claim they identified themselves as cops, but they weren't dressed as cops. They claimed they were in fear for their lives from her "trying to run over" one officer. The shooting was ruled unjustified and one of the cops was brought up on charges, but the judge tossed the case at the preliminary hearing. The shooting brought to light a whole host of problems in that particular unit and department including gross mishandling of evidence that resulted in charges being dropped in dozens of cases. Everyone involved was white. Entirely coincidentally, I'm sure, I don't recall the case getting much national press nor attention from civil rights groups other than just locally.

It seems a poor, white, low-level (former?) drug user who gets shot dead by cops while backing out of a parking stall is just a statistic, while large, violent, black men who assault cops and try to take their guns are cause celebre.

I'm worried about excessive force from cops. I'm no less worried about how the media stokes the flames of racial discord in this nation.

Charles
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,835
Location
Mulligan's Valley
I noticed very early on that the sometimes prevalent us against them thug cop attitude, and the way that race plays into policing go way beyond the scope of openly carried guns. OCing brings it out, that's for sure, but it is neither a cause nor a solution for the problems as a whole.

Speaking from regional experience which may or may not correlate to the tendencies of other regions, best case scenario, it will make a difference for the guy or gal OCing not getting stopped as he or she may have otherwise. More likely, they'll be more likely than whites to get stopped, as we've seen from cmdr iceman. At its worst, we have the situation in Detroit, where the DPD many years after OCing has become normalized, is arresting and charging innocent black men with concealed carry if they are OCing without a license.

The author is not wrong, it'd certainly help if more people did on a big scale, but I don't think he quite understands the scope and dangers of what he's suggesting, especially to black men who don't very solidly prepare themselves and have dangerous cops to contend with. Nor do I think he understands the limits of what more black men OCing could do in the real world.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Peaceful exercise of rights is a good thing.

But sadly a large number of black men are unable to legally exercise this right due to lifetime loss of rights for any felony conviction or domestic violence misdemeanor conviction. Why black men have such a higher rate of felony convictions than do white men (a black man is about 8x more likely to commit/be convicted of murder than is a white man) is a subject way off topic for this board.

But to the extent that there is a problem with police using excessive force, I wonder to what extent it is actually racially based, vs socially economically based. Last year here in Utah some under-cover, out-of-uniform cops shot a young woman dead as she backed out of parking spot in her car after she didn't obey their orders to stop. They claim they identified themselves as cops, but they weren't dressed as cops. They claimed they were in fear for their lives from her "trying to run over" one officer. The shooting was ruled unjustified and one of the cops was brought up on charges, but the judge tossed the case at the preliminary hearing. The shooting brought to light a whole host of problems in that particular unit and department including gross mishandling of evidence that resulted in charges being dropped in dozens of cases. Everyone involved was white. Entirely coincidentally, I'm sure, I don't recall the case getting much national press nor attention from civil rights groups other than just locally.

It seems a poor, white, low-level (former?) drug user who gets shot dead by cops while backing out of a parking stall is just a statistic, while large, violent, black men who assault cops and try to take their guns are cause celebre.

I'm worried about excessive force from cops. I'm no less worried about how the media stokes the flames of racial discord in this nation.

Charles
Here's the thing, Charles: it is, indeed, often difficult to distinguish individual bias (e.g. racism) from institutional bias (e.g. higher rates of criminal prosecution of the poor). But when, in a particular incident, you have clear evidence of individual misconduct (even if it's as "minor" as an initial lack of self-control, such as demonstrated by DW), it becomes much easier to assume the individual bias.

Perhaps this is because folks would prefer to blame a "bad apple" than accept there is a need for serious institutional reform. Or, perhaps because individual racism explains both the initial encounter and its ultimate resolution.

To me it seems clear that, if there is such strong doubt about the motivations of individual officers, the solution is for them to collectively do their best police each other and ensure squeaky-clean behavior. After all, it doesn't really matter what motivates the officer if he behaves professionally, morally, and within the law.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,969
Location
Henrico
I would argue that OC would be quite effective for ANYONE OF ANY RACE in the 4th Circuit via United States v. Black since it's just one extra safeguard between LAC and LEO.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Here's the thing, Charles: it is, indeed, often difficult to distinguish individual bias (e.g. racism) from institutional bias (e.g. higher rates of criminal prosecution of the poor).
Or, are there higher rates of prosecution among the poor (or other demographics) because of higher rates of criminal offenses among such groups?

Put another way, is it possible that poverty might be a common result of not following the rules of society (both criminal and merely socially accepted), rather than poverty causing (or predicting) people not to follow the rules of society?

But when, in a particular incident, you have clear evidence of individual misconduct (even if it's as "minor" as an initial lack of self-control, such as demonstrated by DW), it becomes much easier to assume the individual bias.
I'm not aware of Officer Wilson exhibiting any lack of self control nor anything else that would indicate any "individual bias" on his part. No doubt he had some tactical errors. Beyond that?


Perhaps this is because folks would prefer to blame a "bad apple" than accept there is a need for serious institutional reform.
Or perhaps some folks like to claim institutional racism in the absence of any evidence of actual racism.

Show me real racism and I'll join you in objecting and demanding accountability and change. Claim "institutional racism" and I'll need to see real proof. Because at this point, the most obvious "institutional racism" takes the form of affirmative action, racial set-assides in federal contracting, racial tests for practicing American Indian religions that get legal exemptions for Peyote use, and other such laws and policies that place white, asian, and jewish men at disadvantage for employment, promotion, acceptance to college, and scholarships compared to every other demographic out there.

But, as I wrote above, this all seems way off topic on this thread.

Charles
 
Last edited:

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,847
Location
El Paso, TX
I suspect that if more black men carried OC -- yet didn't loose their aggressive 'tude and tendency to confront/verbally assault and otherwise bully people (let alone doing worse) -- more black men would get shot.

So all in all, and contrary to the Huffington Post "analysis," the end result -- getting shot -- seems kind of counter-productive to me, yes?

It's amazing that one tiny little hole in someone -- no matter how loud, big & bad they are -- can change everything. Instantly.

Just like Colt Manufacturing used to say...something about guns making people equal.

As for being polite because one is armed, I don't think so: You're either that way to begin with or not -- carrying a gun changes nothing re: one's personality.

Like a bum wearing a $1K suit, driving a $100K car or living in a $1M house -- there's still a "bum inside" (sorry Intel).
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I suspect that if more black men carried OC -- yet didn't loose their aggressive 'tude and tendency to confront/verbally assault and otherwise bully people (let alone doing worse) -- more black men would get shot.
Right, because A: having an aggressive 'tude is a racial (rather than cultural) feature, and B: there aren't loads of white dudes impressed by "urban culture" who act like aggressive louts.

Frankly, sir, this is a disgusting post. Incidentally, Russian culture is every bit as aggressive, loutish, and uncivilized as is urban culture, and as far a I can tell you're still as much a Russian as an American.
 
Last edited:

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,847
Location
El Paso, TX
"Frankly, sir, this is a disgusting post. Incidentally, Russian culture is every bit as aggressive, loutish, and uncivilized as is urban culture, and as far a I can tell you're still as much a Russian as an American." -- Il Maresciallo


So, we both are making "disgusting" posts, but yours is about Russians and mine is about blacks, even though you agree they are "loutish" also (using your "urban culture" euphemism)? Give me the rest of the day to get my mind around that kind of thinking as I attempt to connect the dots...

Presently, however, I have to ask: What is your negative fascination with Russians, as you've called me that before? If anything I have White Russian in me, not Red...so I'm more reactionary (Czarist) than Communist (Bolshevik). But maybe you and I are really related somehow, seeing as we have similar views? Could we be long-lost bros (brahs in Hawaii) or something? Separated at birth perhaps? ;-)

But yes, I AM an American, a REAL one, not a poser that passes for one nowadays. Thank you so much for noticing...

I didn't know Russians (in general) were "loutish" people, but even if they were "loutish," we don't have a huge population of Russians here all over America to be concerned about, do we. And I haven't seen any Russian "protestors" out in the streets burning & looting -- ever. And "loutish" doesn't AT ALL imply violent behavior, does it. But we DO have a huge population of blacks, don't we. And yes, they are aggressive (not loutish) AND violent -- where have you been all your life? Have you been in prison with them? Or in combat with them? Did you ever live on the street and experience that reality? Or ever lived in the Greater Houston Texas Metroplex? Does the burning & looting we've seen recently (and in the past with more to come in the future) indicate violent behavior? And it happens almost always in THEIR neighborhoods. What OTHER ethnic group in America tends to react that way to ANY provocation, real OR imagined?

Really, what is YOUR "expertise" in the matter? None.

Finding facts "disgusting" seems like some sort of mental disorder...or maybe it's just your silly sombrero being too tight out there in the hot sun of the Sierra Madre?

So because you think I'm Russian I'm "loutish" also (besides disgusting)? Is that name-calling, since you aren't meaning that as a compliment, not only insulting me (not really, I don't care) but a whole NATION of people? So if I am a Russian (or of Russian heritage) maybe THAT's why I understand blacks better than most? Because we're both "loutish" groups of peoples? In short then, you mean it takes one to know one?

Hmmmm...maybe you're on to something there. I know I understand ISIS pretty well (that's because I'm a Christian Fundamentalist, but that's another topic).

Regardless, as long as people like you make excuses for persistent, negative and violent "cultural" behavior of a particular group, then you give them a walk for said behavior and no one will ever expect -- no, DEMAND -- them to take personal responsibility for their misbehavior (to put it mildly) and go on blaming everyone else EXCEPT themselves (and THAT is a "cultural" thing, too). And they thank you for it, so they can continue to stay in the dark/under the radar. Just like all the news media that aid in that effort by not posting pictures of the "suspects" involved in the latest restaurant violence, convenience store armed robbery, car-jacking, home invasion, or street mugging. Afraid even to mention the race of the "suspects" (unless they're white). Or the Police in Ferguson, MO, caving in to the "protestors" in fear of them. And police in other towns where "protests" happened doing the same, in fear of a group of loudmouth bullies, DARING anyone to do anything about it. I wonder why that is.

Mere coincidence? Don't think so.

But I won't "debate" this particular point further with you, being as clueless and PC as you are, or simply choosing to be in denial. You also think that everyone is the same and every ethnic group has the same traits/behaviors/characteristics. They don't. Blacks will TELL you whites are easy targets, easy to bully/intimidate, because whites are afraid of blacks. Why would that be if there is nothing to be afraid of?

As for the original issue, however, what I was hinting at was this: If one is OCing everyone can see the gun (of course) and so any aggressive behavior of that OCing individual toward others would cause others to fear he/she would USE that gun. So if "words" were spoken, and things escalated (as they do before physical violence takes place), the "potential victim" (also armed) may very well try to act preemptively and shoot first, before the aggressor got physical or before HE could shoot. Preemptive self-defense IS still self-defense. One doesn't HAVE to wait to be struck first, or shot at first. No physical injury of the "victim" needs to happen BEFORE one can self-defend. Only to be in fear of severe bodily harm or for their life, period. So I don't think an aggressive/confrontational/short-temper person should be carrying a gun AT ALL, let alone OCing -- it's not going to work for them. So don't tell me one's psychological makeup is irrelevant when it comes to carrying a firearm. If it is, then there's no need for background checks looking for mental or domestic violence issues, is there. Or a long rap sheet of same.

So that's how OCing by people with "aggressive 'tudes" would be dangerous -- for THEM.

And as I mentioned, just because someone is carrying (CC or OC) doesn't mean any aggressive personality/short temper they have disappears...it's right there under the surface.

Would they suddenly become polite once someone with a no-nonsense demeanor draws and points a gun at them ready to shoot with the next heartbeat? Definitely, they sure would, partly because most of the time, they're just ACTING tough (another "cultural" thing), to bully/intimidate so it SEEMS very real to the "victim" -- they'd change their tune in a split second and it's comical when that happens! If they're so polite THEN, why weren't they polite earlier? Why did it have to escalate to a gun being drawn by the person they were attempting to bully/intimidate?

One more thing: Didn't you earlier say something about people feeling uncomfortable around strangers, because they didn't know them, or what they might/might not do (whether armed or not). And the same for being around ARMED strangers (that would be OCers, since one wouldn't know a stranger was armed if he/she was CCing) for the same reason -- not knowing the person so not knowing his/her intentions? You must be meaning the general UNarmed public out there being "uncomfortable," since we who are armed aren't AT ALL uncomfortable, as we are at least on an equal footing with armed strangers, whatever their intentions. So maybe the SOLUTION for those other "uncomfortable" people is to be armed also. You know, to use a liberal cliché, they should "empower" themselves. Just a thought...

But really, who here is EVER worried or EVER alarmed when they see another OCer out there (as rare as that is)? NEVER, yes? Is that ONLY because we ALSO carry?

I know I'm not worried or alarmed...mainly because I'm armed, too (and on top of that I DO have 2 aces up my sleeve). So I can't relate to feeling "uncomfortable" around strangers, be they armed or not. Ever.

...but I'll admit that I DO feel "uncomfortable" when I see strangers that LOOK like they're trouble (yes, "profiling" and there ain't nothing wrong with that at all, contrary to ignorant but popular liberal/public belief), and so I go on silent alert (i.e., Jeff Cooper's Situational Awareness Codes go up a color level or 2).

But don't we all, as it's the prudent thing to do -- just in case...


******************************************

Grapeshot: If you wish, I will go back and delete ("withdraw") both my posts above. Just let me know.
 
Last edited:

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
I suspect that if more black men carried OC -- yet didn't loose their aggressive 'tude and tendency to confront/verbally assault and otherwise bully people (let alone doing worse) -- more black men would get shot.

So all in all, and contrary to the Huffington Post "analysis," the end result -- getting shot -- seems kind of counter-productive to me, yes?

It's amazing that one tiny little hole in someone -- no matter how loud, big & bad they are -- can change everything. Instantly.

Just like Colt Manufacturing used to say...something about guns making people equal.

As for being polite because one is armed, I don't think so: You're either that way to begin with or not -- carrying a gun changes nothing re: one's personality.

Like a bum wearing a $1K suit, driving a $100K car or living in a $1M house -- there's still a "bum inside" (sorry Intel).
I would like to point out that most minorities are:

a) law-abiding
b) swell people once you get to know them
c) not even remotely resembling: "... aggressive '[atti]tude and tendency to confront/verbally assault and otherwise bully people (let alone doing worse)"
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
I would like to point out that most minorities are:

a) law-abiding
b) swell people once you get to know them
c) not even remotely resembling "... aggressive '[atti]tude and tendency to confront/verbally assault and otherwise bully people (let alone doing worse)"
+1 I wager most people (minority or not) are swell people even if we don't get to know them......;)
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
If you wish, I will go back and delete ("withdraw") both my posts above. Just let me know.
I hear crickets chirping.

Maybe you should go back and read what you said and delete them yourself.

WHEREFORE, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity; let each of us, hold out to his neighbour the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of A GOOD CITIZEN, AN OPEN AND RESOLUTE FRIEND, AND A VIRTUOUS SUPPORTER OF THE RIGHTS OF MANKIND AND OF THE FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.
COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
I agree...including most people who are cops, elected government officials, and others who work for government.

Charles
Most of them are not working of money stolen from others.

The public employees wearing red coats in the 18th century and the public officials enforcing the law under the British government fell into your definition too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top