Guns Don't Kill Black People - Other Black People Do - By David Horowitz (1999)

Guns don't kill black people, other blacks do

After reading this article straight through and then going back over it to highlight the gems contained within - there is no surprise that David Horowitz is despised by the BQPFRC per THEIR position relative to his. They are unlikely to undercut his arguments in absolute terms. Instead they must attack him on his assumed "intentions".

Sometimes the truth, as nasty as it might taste at times as it crosses the sensory receptors that bring awareness to one's brain, IS NECESSARY for Equal and Intelligent to conspire together to work on EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS rather than points of obfuscation.

In the sociology of the left, including the NAACP, there cannot be a wound the black community inflicts on itself that is not ultimately the responsibility of malicious whites. To think otherwise would be to "blame the victim." Only mean-spirited conservatives (like me) would even think of doing that.

The fact is that while blacks make up only 12 percent of the population, they account for 46 percent of total violent crime and 90 percent of the murders of other blacks. It is they, not whites or gun manufacturers, who are responsible for the disproportionate gun deaths of young black males.

Firearms don't kill people. Sociopaths do. It takes a human brain to pull the trigger. If young black males abuse firearms in an irresponsible and criminal fashion, why should the firearm industry be held accountable? Why not their parents? Why not themselves?

Unfortunately, as a nation we have become so trapped in the melodrama of black victimization and white oppression that we are in danger of losing all sense of proportion. If blacks are oppressed in America, why isn't there a black exodus? Why do all those black Haitians want to come here? To be oppressed?

In the grips of a politically inspired group psychosis, we find it natural to collude with demagogic race hustlers in support of a fantasy in which African-Americans are no longer responsible for anything negative they do, even to themselves.

Here are some gems from the article by David Horowitz:

Under the heading "Racist Representation of Indigent Defendants," for example, it offers this evidence: "Gary Burns, black, executed in Indiana on 20 November 1997, was described to the jury by his white attorney as an 'insignificant, snivelly little street person.'" End of example.

This is an oft used tactic by the left.  On the one hand they believe that making pronouncements that a particular situation has happened is equivalent to them having proven that the nefarious intentions that they subscribe to are true. 

More importantly notice the use of "stultification" that I have warned about.  The problem is not that this defense attorney described a Black man as an "insignificant, snivelly little street person".  The willingness to accept such assault and belittling is widely accepted by a good portion of our people.  The problem is that such an assault needs to be done as part of a transaction.  As I am recording an interview with leftist educator Jonathan Kozol right now, for example, many Blacks have no problem calling Black students "ignorant" as long as he blames it on No Child Left Behind rather than on genetics or the prevailing culture within the Black community.

Thus the willingness to assume the pose of inferiority must have some payoff in the larger political scheme of things. 

Thus the statistic with which Amnesty opens its case is this: "Of the 500 prisoners executed between 1977 and 1998," according to Amnesty, "81.8 [percent] were convicted of murdering a white person, even though blacks and whites are the victims of homicide in almost equal numbers nationwide."

I ask everyone to review the 5 part series produced by the Atlanta Journal Constitution that was printed about 2 years ago.  In this report they did a county by county break down of the distribution of the death sentencing.   The race of the defendant.  The race of the victim and the county that the sentence was dolled out.

Ironically - and the AJC is far from a conservative news paper - the results were clear:

• If you kill a person in city region (ie: a progressive area of the state) you were less likely to be assigned the death penalty
• If you kill a person in a rural area (ie: a more conservative area) you were more likely to be assigned the death penalty

The devilment comes when race is applied as the sorting criteria and thus those who wish to make the data say something that it doesn't have their field day.

More Black people are killed in urban areas.  Thus if you are a Black killer of a Black you are less likely to receive the death penalty in this urban area.  This is the same with White on Black as well as Black on White homicides

The likely murder victim in rural areas are White.  A White killer or a Black killer in a rural area is more likely to receive the death penalty than a killer in the city.

One only need consider the recent "Brian Nichols - Court House Killer" trial.  The man shot 4 people dead - including a judge, a sheriff, a court reporter and a Customs Agent.  The jury, held up by 2 individuals gave him a life sentence instead of DEATH.  

If you want to look at the source of the problem with the perceived imbalance - start with the PROGRESSIVE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY ideologues.  THEY are the one's skewing the numbers.  

The defense of criminals as a civil rights cause is only an extreme manifestation of what has apparently become the very essence of the civil rights movement. Do black children fail to achieve in school? White oppression explains their failure. (Nothing else could without blaming the victims.)

Mr Horowitz has described what I refer to as "Justice Thurgood Marshall Justice".  Today's civil rights establishment sees their role as fighting the system against injustice when it comes to their favored people.  Sadly if one of the "favored people" kills another "favored person" you will not see this establishment displaying the same vigor as they do when they get to fight the system.

Poor black academic performance cannot be seen as a failure of black families to educate their children, or of the black community to support educational values, which are often referred to derisively as "thinking white." Black failure can only be the result of some lingering residue of the white perfidy involved in slavery and segregation. Call it "institutional racism."

Indeed - the slave master's whip from slavery long, long ago has more influence on the life and character of a 6 year old Black boy just starting school than does the management influence of his parents, family and community.

I just heard Jonathan Kozol arguing that he doesn't expect the parents of the kids to do to expose their kids to a rich set of literature BECAUSE they too likely experienced the same deprivation of quality education that their kids are now going through.

I believe that certain "Snarling Fox Liberals" are ultimately more destructive to the hopes that my people will ever construct the necessary human resources management system that we need to accomplish our permanent interests.  They are far too inclined to look toward government systems to make the fix.  Thus they turn what needs to be ORGANIC INITIATIVES which are run by the people who will ULTIMATELY CONSUME THE BENEFITS into a "Chance For External Resources".

THESE are the people who must be checked.  Not allowed to have unfettered access to our planning process lest they mislead us.

The myth of racial oppression, invoked to explain every social deficit of blacks, is an exercise in psychological denial. Crying racism deflects attention from the actual causes of the problems that afflict African-American communities. Its net result is to deprive people and communities who could help themselves of the power to change their fate

This is all too correct. Racism chasing is often exploited for its UNIFYING effect upon Black people.  Even when the establishment controls all of the key institutional seats in an area the operatives will have the masses focused on how they have been "left behind" than they will on the management processes that will all the group to translate the control into effective results.

Supplemental Article: Jack White Attacks David Horowitz

My style was the focus of one part of the interview that White seriously distorted in his column. I told White that liberals had a habit of patronizing black people by not telling them what they really felt. I gave as an example the failure of white editorialists to be critical of the NAACP's suit against gun manufacturers for violence that inner-city blacks perpetrated on each other. I said: "White people generally are intimidated from telling black people the truth in a blunt manner." White asked me: "Why then do you think that you can talk to black people that way?" I answered: "Because I earned the right to do so in the '60s." Here is how White distorted my answer:

"Last week Horowitz told me that he had earned the right to talk down to blacks 'because of all I did in the '60s.'"

Once again - Horowitz violated the agreement. The Black Establishment is only willing to accept stultification IF it is done as part of a transaction.