Posted by
Mostly Genius – August 27, 2009
Ironically this is not going to be commentary on crime, but rather on the gun rights movement. I found this little rant in a Seattle alternative weekly. All of the emphasis is mine.
… It scared me to no end. It also pissed me off. If you all four hadn’t had guns, we would’ve had a completely different situation. Instead, you got all six of us tied up while you stole what you deemed worth jacking. What also pisses me off is that you were all black. Why the fuck would you feed the stereotype? I couldn’t see more than your eyes and a little bit around them, so I found myself racial-profiling out of fear. I stopped doing that, because I’m stronger and better than that…
…I work hard as an attractive woman to be intelligent and interesting, because I don’t like perpetuating negative stereotypes. I wish you would work just as hard to rid the world of the stereotype that black men should be feared because they’ll put a gun to your head and steal…
I cannot read this article without wondering if the author would have been happier if her home invaders were more racially diverse. Now for the gun rights portion of the post. When we talk about “normalization” or similar sentiments regarding gun rights, this is part of the audience we are trying to convince. These are people who worry about ethnically stereotyping the home invaders that victimized them. I don’t think they get reached by shock therapy (or even lobotomy.)
The idea that people would have some kind of practical (or tactical) answer to a home-invasion robbery (regardless of race) is totally alien to those of the authors ilk.
Posted by
Mostly Genius – August 18, 2009
From SnowFlakesInHell on open carry at political protests:
…part of breaking down stereotypes and misconceptions about gun owners being deviant or abnormal is to act normal. Normal people do not walk around with AR-15s slung over their shoulders.
I think that pretty much sums up my position on this issue.
Posted by
Mostly Genius – December 8, 2008
Guns don’t belong in national parks
Thank goodness we have the uninformed college kid opinion on this issue:
The National Rifle Association played the self-defense card as justification for lifting the firearms ban in national parks, but being safe at a park is about being smart. Putting food away properly, locking doors, closing windows and not approaching dangerous animals will make for a much safer park experience than just carrying your gun around.
It isn’t the bears that people need to worry about. It’s the rapist-murderers (who don’t care about how your food is stored) that people need to protect themselves from. Secluded areas like parks are ideal places for this sort of predators.
It is a constitutional right to carry a firearm, but there are some places where guns just don’t belong. A park is a place where a handgun is totally unnecessary. While I understand that most people with a concealed firearm permit will not use national parks as shooting galleries, the potential for damage to the indigenous wildlife population is just too great.
While I agree with the authors constitutional position, many state governments do not. “The potential for damage to the indigenous wildlife” is the same regardless of this of this law, unless we are talking about rapist-murderers: they are going to get culled.
Posted by
Mostly Genius – December 4, 2008
Subscribe to 