Liberals at it Again??? No Still

August 22, 2007 / by JOEZsREPUBLICANPAGE

Liberal Views, Black Victims
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Send an email to Walter E. Williams Email It
Print It
Take Action
Read Article & Comments (10) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

Last year, among the nation's 10 largest cities, Philadelphia had the highest murder rate with 406 victims. This year could easily top last year's with 240 murders so far.

Other cities such as Baltimore, Detroit and Washington, D.C., with large black populations, experience the nation's highest rates of murder and violent crime. This high murder rate is, and has been, predominantly a black problem.

According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, while 13 percent of the population, committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.

Blacks are not only the major victims of homicide; blacks suffer high rates of all categories of serious violent crime, and another black is most often the perpetrator.

Liberals and their political allies say the problem is the easy accessibility of guns and greater gun control is the solution. That has to be nonsense. Guns do not commit crimes; people do.

Up through 1979, the FBI reported homicide arrests sorted by racial breakdowns that included Japanese. Between 1976 and 1978, 21 of 48,695 arrests for murder and non-negligent manslaughter were Japanese-Americans. That translates to an annual murder rate of 1 per 100,000 of the Japanese-American population. Would anyone advance the argument that the reason why homicide is virtually nonexistent among Japanese-Americans is because they can't find guns?

The high victimization rate experienced by the overwhelmingly law-abiding black community is mostly the result of predators not having to pay a heavy enough price for their behavior. They benefit from all kinds of asinine excuses, such as poverty, racial discrimination and few employment opportunities.

During the 1940s and '50s, I grew up in North Philadelphia where many of today's murders occur. It was a time when blacks were much poorer, there was far more racial discrimination, and fewer employment opportunities and other opportunities for upward socioeconomic mobility were available. There was nowhere near the level of crime and wanton destruction that exists today. Behavior accepted today wasn't accepted then by either black adults or policemen.

Police authorities often know who are the local criminals and drug lords and where crack houses are located; however, various legal technicalities hamper their ability to make arrests and raids. Law-abiding citizens are often afraid to assist police or testify against criminals for fear of retaliation that can include murder. The level of criminal activity not only puts residents in physical jeopardy but represents a heavy tax on people least able to bear it. That heavy tax includes higher prices for goods and services and fewer shopping opportunities because supermarkets and other large retailers are reluctant to bear the costs of doing business in high-crime areas.

So here's the question: Should black people accept government's dereliction of its first basic function, that of providing protection? My answer is no. One of our basic rights is the right to defend oneself against predators. If the government can't or won't protect people, people have a right to protect themselves.

You say, "Hey, Williams, you're not talking about vigilantism, are you?" Yes, I am. Webster's Dictionary defines vigilantism as: a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate.

Example: A number of years ago, Black Muslims began to patrol Mayfair, a drug-infested, gang-ridden Washington, D.C., housing project. The gangs and drug lords left, probably because the Black Muslims didn't feel obliged to issue Miranda warnings. Black men should set up neighborhood patrols, armed if necessary, and if politicians and police don't like it, they should do their jobs. No one should have to live in daily fear for their lives and safety.



Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Dr. Willams is right on the MONEY when President JOHNSON started his WAR on PROVERTY and took the father out of the household he destroyed the BLACK FAMILY ,and we are paying the PRICE for that TODAY !!!!!!!

11 comments on Liberals at it Again??? No Still

  • ChihulahuaLover said 1 years ago
    True Joe. I know when we lived in the Houston/Galveston area for almost two years there were places that the police and emergency vehicles wouldn't go to because of the crime. We were very pleased to get moved away from there. But not before someone tried to break into our house while Nathan and I were at home at night alone. Scott was working nights back then. I was never so scared in all of my life as I was that night talking to the 911 operator. Nathan was just 2 1/2 years old. Fortunately he slept through it and I guess the perportraitor heard the police and saw the lights and took off. But I never did feel safe after that there.[SAD][HEART]

    Jenn
  • JOEZsREPUBLICANPAGE said 1 years ago
    [OHMY][OHMY] Is that when Scott taught you how to shoot a GUN ??? That must have been a very trying experience to go through , Thank GOD you and Nathan were not hurt [THUMBUP][THUMBUP][THUMBUP]
  • ChihulahuaLover said 1 years ago
    No, he had actually taught me how when we met. I was 18 and he was 19 when we met. Although while I was on the phone with the 911 operator I had his gun in one hand and the phone in the other. I was praying the whole time that he wasn't coming on in but if he did I would have shot him to protect myself and my 2 1/2 year old son. Yes I was very thankful. Don't ever want to go through something like that again and I hope I don't have to.[HEART][HEART]
  • payback911 said 1 years ago
    Everyone of sufficient age with a clean record should receive firearms training. He should carry his registered weapon at all times.
  • psycho60s said 1 years ago
    What is your idea of "sufficient age"?
  • payback911 said 1 years ago
    I imagine a person old enough to serve in the military could be trained in responsible weapons handling. There are tests to exclude psychopaths drug users and the like.
    My only experience with the practice is in Israel. It really works here.[SMILE]
  • JOEZsREPUBLICANPAGE said 1 years ago
    [SMILE] I knew I could agree with you on something [THUMBUP][THUMBUP][THUMBUP]
  • psycho60s said 1 years ago
    Took a while but I figure I could agree with that one myself. Oh...and I do carry. Hunters safety course and 2 Texas firearms safety courses under my belt. If you can't be safe you have no reason to carry a gun.
  • grumpy said 1 years ago
    Hey Joe
  • JOEZsREPUBLICANPAGE said 1 years ago
    [SMILE][THUMBUP] Hey ,, Grumpy how are things going ????Hope all is well with you [THUMBUP][THUMBUP]
  • grumpy said 1 years ago
    Gets better every day

Add a comment

To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster

  • Type the words in the box below the image.

Email this blog post to a friend

To email posts to friends, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster

Friends

View All