I’m black, don’t shoot me

[billh58]

I’m black, don’t shoot me
By Eugene Robinson, Published: February 20

"Sometimes, when I’m in my car, I crank up the music pretty loud. All you Michael Dunns out there, please don’t shoot me.

Please don’t shoot my sons, either, or my brothers-in-law, nephews, nephews-in-law or other male relatives. I have quite a few friends and acquaintances who also happen to be black men, and I’d appreciate your not shooting them as well, even if the value you place on their lives is approximately zero.

I know I shouldn’t have to ask, but nothing else has worked. The criminal justice system has a mixed record — Dunn was at least partly held accountable for the burst of mayhem in which he fatally shot Jordan Davis, while George Zimmerman got off scot-free for killing Trayvon Martin. But whatever the final outcome, prosecutors and juries never get involved until after the fact. When mothers have already cried over the caskets of their dead sons. When it’s too late."

- Snip -

"I know it’s important that the next Zimmerman or Dunn be convicted of murder, if that’s what the evidence says. But I’m so very tired of funerals and trials. I want to know what we can do to keep the next Trayvon Martin and the next Jordan Davis alive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-im-black-dont-shoot-me/2014/02/20/3899521e-9a61-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

Keeping innocent Americans alive is the goal of those of us calling for sensible gun control legislation. Background checks did not catch Zimmerman or Dunn, or the thousands of other "law abiding" gun owners who suddenly lost it and became killers because they had a gun handy. The SYG and Castle Doctrine laws have been written too broadly, and have given rise to a culture of bullies with guns. Being a physical bully usually does not show up on a background check, but it is also not a protected civil right -- like hate speech.

Cops and most LEOs need to pass psychological tests before being allowed to carry a gun in public -- why not consider the same standards for civilians who want to carry a lethal weapon in public? The fact that a person feels threatened enough to want to be armed at all times should indicate at least some degree of paranoia.

As for Eugene Robinson's article, and plea, background checks also do not reveal bigotry, racism, or other anti-social tendencies. Character references are required for many governmental occupations which require that a person carry a lethal weapon. Yes there are steps that we, as a society, can take to reduce the number of potential killers with guns on our streets. But first we must overcome the right-wing Second Amendment absolutist mentality that we have allowed to control the conversation.

We must give the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment more attention and enact laws and regulations which guarantee the rest of our civil rights.

[Hoyt]

1. Robinson nails it. So does OP's opinion. Maybe some day, gun fanciers will truly act responsibly

and push for severe restrictions on toting guns. Until then, we'll have to continue paying the price to let just about any yahoo walk around in public with a gun or two strapped to their body. Keeping those yahoos happy, is much more important than stopping unnecessary killing and intimidation by gun nutz. Heck, we can't walk down the street with a sword or folding baton, but these yahoos think they are entitled to carry gunz.

[old man 76]

2. Old west justice

Years ago in the old west if you shoot an unarmed person you would hang. If you shoot an armed person in the back you would hang. We need those laws back.