Legally armed civilians, we’re told, pose a major danger. They shoot innocent bystanders, justifiably kill others whenever they personally believe “force is reasonably necessary,” and rely on racist self-defense laws. [More]
One question: Why do they refer to violence monopoly propaganda apparatchik Mark Maremont as a “reporter”?
And as per the playbook of resurrecting old scare tactics that didn’t work the first time, such bleating isn’t even original.
I just got a subscription solicitation in the mail from WSJ. They get the same reply FOP did.
[Via bondmen]
“… we’re told …”
Told by whom?
Remember the rules!
1. Who is this source.
2. Why are they telling me this?
3. Why are they telling me this now?
WSJ, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!
“… rely on racist self-defense laws.”
Oh, like “Stand Your Ground,” which every credible look into the Florida’s* case history shows overwhelmingly benefits black defendants?
———
* – Florida is credited as being the first State to formally pass into law a provision removing the “duty to retreat” when accosted in public, so it’s natural to assume that they have the largest pool of SYG-related cases to study.