Are You Uncomfortable with an Armed Black Man?

 

If you are, then maybe you should be asking yourself: Why am I worried about armed black men?

After all, the vast majority of citizens of this country, of any color, are not violent criminals. When I visit our local gun range, I see that most of the customers are black. They believe in being able to defend themselves and their loved ones, and so they go to the range to become proficient with firearms. They are the least likely people to commit criminal violence with a firearm.

We already know that police are not the answer to every question. Police shot Philando Castile despite the fact that he was a legal gun owner. The very idea of a black man with a gun scared them. It wouldn’t scare them so much if we decided law-abiding black men should own guns, if when police hear of “black man with a gun” they think “lawful,” instead of “criminal.”

The Second Amendment should not only be for white people who jump through the hoops to obtain permits to purchase or carry a concealed weapon. The current bureaucratic system in Maryland leads to a big racial disparity in outcomes; it is simply easier for the average white person to obtain a Concealed Carry and Wear permit.

So we need to empower blacks in Baltimore City! Baltimore needs, now more than ever, an engaged citizenry that looks out for each other. And our gun-owning citizenry should reflect the full diversity of our city: every race and ethnicity.

The safest cities in America have the highest proportions of legal gun ownership. Maryland has issued all of 17,000 concealed carry permits. Florida has issued 1.7 MILLION such permits.  Yet you are five times more likely to be murdered by gunshot in Maryland than in Florida.  It may be counterintuitive, but it is clear that more citizens owning firearms leads to less crime.

If we just focus on the cities: Baltimore is ten times more dangerous than Miami-Dade (at close to 1 homicide per thousand people versus 1 homicide per 10k people). It is not as if Miami is a paragon of virtue compared to Baltimore. It is, after all, also a city awash in gangs and drugs. But Miami-Dade also has a high percentage of gun ownership among legal citizens, people who just want to mind their own business. Legal gun ownership deters criminals.

In Maryland, you have to be important to obtain a carry permit – one way to get a permit is to own a business. If you are “just” an employee, then you cannot obtain the right to carry a firearm. And so criminals know that an ordinary person, someone who is just trying to make ends meet, and just cashed in their paycheck, is a soft, unarmed, target.

So what we are doing, time and again, is making sure that criminals target those who are not so well off. Those who cannot afford to be robbed. The good citizens who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is time to face the facts: gun control in Baltimore City has not worked. Comparing Baltimore to any city with higher proportions of legal gun ownership makes it clear that the opposite is true: stricter gun control leads to MORE crime, not less.

So I ask each reader to ask themselves this question: “Do I have a problem with arming law-abiding black men in Baltimore City?” If you do, you need to examine your own biases. You need to confront your privilege. I’d like to see every adult citizen of Baltimore City who has not been convicted of a violent felony – black or white – be encouraged to own and carry a firearm for the protection of themselves and their loved ones.

To me, gun ownership is true empowerment.  If we really respect human rights, if we really distrust the police force, if we really believe that Black Lives Matter, then we should be making it as easy as possible for lawful black (and white) citizens of Baltimore to be armed.

[I wrote this as an Opinion piece for the Baltimore Sun. For some reason, they did not publish it. Racists.]

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 38 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    The question in the title is incendiary and it’s borderline racist to even ask it.  It’s on a par with “when did you stop beating your wife?”  

    Absent any evidence that someone is uncomfortable, the assumption should always be that people are not.  Asking that question of someone puts them in the position of having to explain why they are not racist. 

    I don’t answer questions designed to insult me. 

    • #31
  2. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    I worked with a ton of black vets back when IO was on the South Side of Chicago.  I’d love to have seen them armed.

    • #32
  3. kidCoder Member
    kidCoder
    @kidCoder

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    But I’ve seen one of the right’s most popular solutions in practice, and it doesn’t work.

    It doesn’t when everyone has a gun, no one knows how to use them and no one is responsible. I supposed the caveats are a “legally, efficient, responsibly” (armed society is a polite society) and they’re just as important as the being armed part.

    When there’s no value of life, it just becomes an all-out shootout.

    OK, I’ll buy that. The three conditions you mention in your first sentence all applied in Manhattan in 1977. Legal, efficient, and responsible were the qualities that were missing. I think they’re a lot more important than the guns themselves.

    My point wasn’t anti-gun; it was anti-fantasies that adding guns alone would make a positive difference.

    Any attempt to add guns only to “the right people” ends up with systems like Maryland’s. Add more guns, yes, to the right people, yes, and you do that by letting some of the wrong people slip through the cracks.

    • #33
  4. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    But I’ve seen one of the right’s most popular solutions in practice, and it doesn’t work.

    It doesn’t when everyone has a gun, no one knows how to use them and no one is responsible. I supposed the caveats are a “legally, efficient, responsibly” (armed society is a polite society) and they’re just as important as the being armed part.

    When there’s no value of life, it just becomes an all-out shootout.

    Your point, Nurse, is the key. If the gun carrying folks value neither their own lives or anyone else’s, the “polite society” becomes a “kill the other guy first” society. 

    • #34
  5. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    kidCoder (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    But I’ve seen one of the right’s most popular solutions in practice, and it doesn’t work.

    It doesn’t when everyone has a gun, no one knows how to use them and no one is responsible. I supposed the caveats are a “legally, efficient, responsibly” (armed society is a polite society) and they’re just as important as the being armed part.

    When there’s no value of life, it just becomes an all-out shootout.

    OK, I’ll buy that. The three conditions you mention in your first sentence all applied in Manhattan in 1977. Legal, efficient, and responsible were the qualities that were missing. I think they’re a lot more important than the guns themselves.

    My point wasn’t anti-gun; it was anti-fantasies that adding guns alone would make a positive difference.

    Any attempt to add guns only to “the right people” ends up with systems like Maryland’s. Add more guns, yes, to the right people, yes, and you do that by letting some of the wrong people slip through the cracks.

    There’s nothing you can do to prevent some of the wrong people slipping through the cracks.

    • #35
  6. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    kidCoder (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    But I’ve seen one of the right’s most popular solutions in practice, and it doesn’t work.

    It doesn’t when everyone has a gun, no one knows how to use them and no one is responsible. I supposed the caveats are a “legally, efficient, responsibly” (armed society is a polite society) and they’re just as important as the being armed part.

    When there’s no value of life, it just becomes an all-out shootout.

    OK, I’ll buy that. The three conditions you mention in your first sentence all applied in Manhattan in 1977. Legal, efficient, and responsible were the qualities that were missing. I think they’re a lot more important than the guns themselves.

    My point wasn’t anti-gun; it was anti-fantasies that adding guns alone would make a positive difference.

    Any attempt to add guns only to “the right people” ends up with systems like Maryland’s. Add more guns, yes, to the right people, yes, and you do that by letting some of the wrong people slip through the cracks.

    Still, it’s important to do background checks – I don’t want that to go away.  If you committed violent felonies, I think you have demonstrated you cannot be trusted to carry.

    • #36
  7. kidCoder Member
    kidCoder
    @kidCoder

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Still, it’s important to do background checks – I don’t want that to go away.  If you committed violent felonies, I think you have demonstrated you cannot be trusted to carry.

    It’s important to be *able* to do background checks, for the seller’s peace of mind.

    • #37
  8. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    kidCoder (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    But I’ve seen one of the right’s most popular solutions in practice, and it doesn’t work.

    It doesn’t when everyone has a gun, no one knows how to use them and no one is responsible. I supposed the caveats are a “legally, efficient, responsibly” (armed society is a polite society) and they’re just as important as the being armed part.

    When there’s no value of life, it just becomes an all-out shootout.

    OK, I’ll buy that. The three conditions you mention in your first sentence all applied in Manhattan in 1977. Legal, efficient, and responsible were the qualities that were missing. I think they’re a lot more important than the guns themselves.

    My point wasn’t anti-gun; it was anti-fantasies that adding guns alone would make a positive difference.

    Any attempt to add guns only to “the right people” ends up with systems like Maryland’s. Add more guns, yes, to the right people, yes, and you do that by letting some of the wrong people slip through the cracks.

    Still, it’s important to do background checks – I don’t want that to go away. If you committed violent felonies, I think you have demonstrated you cannot be trusted to carry.

    No, I can’t agree with that.  Make it illegal for violent felons to own a gun, but don’t put the onus on the rest of us. Once you allow “background checks” you open the door to arbitrary government refusal to allow anyone to have a gun.  

    • #38
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.