mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Guns in America
Stop-And-Frisk Hypocrisy on Left and Right
Features Icon
show comments
  • Matt_Thullen

    Maybe the reason that gun rights conservatives aren’t having a cow is because they (a) follow the law, and (b) believe that when it comes to guns, other people should follow the law as well. If stop and frisk meant that people who were legally allowed to carry a gun had that gun taken away, then the gun rights folks would be, well, up in arms.

    It seems like lots of outrage that is directed towards conservatives is a product of people deciding that something said by Trump “really” means something else, and then getting all worked up over it. Stop and frisk got guns out of the hands of people who either aren’t allowed to possess guns (such as ex-felons) or were carrying guns illegally on the street. It would be nice for Mr. Willick to explain how it is that the NRA is supposed to be against this practice, instead of assuming that those who are in favor of more liberal gun laws “should” be outraged that the police are actually enforcing the laws already in effect.

  • TGates

    Mr. Willick is proving himself to be quite the waffle king. It seems everyone is a little bit at fault for everything he writes about. I assume, like many millennials, he does not want to offend anyone.

    All I know is the President Obama has proven himself to be the ultimate poster boy for the NRA. Applications for gun sales continue to sky rocket during his presidency and it would not surprise me if his leadership and rhetoric have put another 100 million guns into the US. Friends and acquaintances of mine, that would have never, ever considered owning a gun 10-20 years ago, now own. And they, men and women alike, own responsibly by taking safety and shooting lessons. HRC will continue where President Obama left off. This is what our culture has become. People, educated people, are scared about the future and they understand the dangers of an unarmed public.

  • Anthony

    Related perspective: half the guns in the U.S. are owned by just 3% of the population (about 55 million Americans own guns) – half the 265 million guns owned in U.S. are concentrated….

    • CaliforniaStark

      The far leftist Guardian (which Time quoted) has little credibility as a source of accurate information, and the same goes for the poll in question.

      In June 2016, a Gallup poll found that four in 10 U.S. households (40%) stated they either owned a gun or had one in their home. In 2015, there were 23 million criminal background checks for gun purchasers/concealed carry permits; as of the first six months of 2016, that number was at 14 million.

      • Anthony

        Two things: 1) we have a” must I believe that” mode; 2) we have a “can I believe that” mode. Whether (in this instance) Time or Guardian provided the questioned data, the point is another view prevails. You may look to confirm something other. I , on the other hand, presume nothing.

        • Fred

          How about addressing his argument that the numbers from a reliable source contradict the numbers from a less reliable source, either by showing your source is more reliable that CS believes or that his numbers are contradicted by a third source more reliable than his. That’s called argument. What you’re doing is called flinging ad hominem BS.

  • Frank Natoli

    Sentence A: The local police—they know who has a gun and who shouldn’t be having a gun.
    Sentence B: If Hillary Clinton became President and encouraged police departments in the posh white suburbs to stop and frisk people to take their guns away.
    Dear Author: You write the above as if the only difference is the color of the individual confronted by police, but all your readers understand that, using your own words, the individual confronted by police in Sentence A “shouldn’t be having a gun”, i.e., does not lawfully possess a gun, and the individual confronted by police in Sentence B may very well have a legal and if necessary licensed gun. THAT’S DIFFERENT.
    You also write as if the stops in Sentence A scenario are done for the simple pleasure of harassing a black man. Are you pretending to be unaware that those stops occur in high crime neighborhoods, where law abiding citizens BEG the police to take a more pro-active role? Or do you simply wish the law abiding citizens in high crime neighborhoods simply put up with the crime because YOU will permit nothing pro-active to be done?

  • QET

    Yeah, not sure I see what the writer is driving at here, especially as he demands policy based on empirical evidence. I’m pretty sure that the empirical evidence conclusively demonstrates that white gun owners in their posh white suburbs are not murdering one another with them, whereas black gun owners in not-posh black urbs are doing just that. So how it is that an aggressive policing policy in the one place and not the other raises issues of justice or fairness?

    • Arkeygeezer

      Because black racial profiling is racism, while white racial profiling is justice. Nevermind where the crime is occurring.

  • FriendlyGoat

    I guess stop and frisk is not possible with openly-carried guns under open-carry laws, right?

    • CaliforniaStark

      Assume you realize stop and frisk is a means to determine if a person has a concealed weapon, and so does not apply in a situation where someone is openly carrying a gun?

      • FriendlyGoat

        Yes, I said that in the first sentence above. Unlike most states, New York apparently has had a lot of stop and frisk in part because people can’t just hold off those cops by carrying their guns in the open.

  • These kinds of “good ideas” are just fruit from the “if youve got nothing to hid you have nothing to worry about” tree, and that is the problem. Why stop with stop and frisk? Why not stop cars and search? Why not knock on doors and search? Its a very small step for man and a giant leap backwards for mankind, to go from justifying stopping someone on the street and searching them to stopping cars to search or searching homes. How about cars in crime neighborhoods, is that enough probable cause? How about homes in crime areas, is that enough probable cause? Think of all the guns and drugs and people with warrants the police would scoop up. Surrender all your freedoms and i guarantee a massive increase in the police stopping crime. Is that what you want? Probable cause is fantastically elastic in its subjectivity. Another marathon you say next weekend? Lets search all people, cars, and homes anywhere in and around the marathon area to prevent terrorism. What? You dont agree? You must be a terrorist. Now we have probable cause to search YOUR home. Recent shooting down the street with suspect at large? Lets search all the homes and stop all the cars to look for him, for your protection. Its a slippery, slippery slope and all this is are people saying “this is ok” but no more, until tomorrow when a little more becomes ok, and no more, until next week and so on, until everything is ok and freedom is no more.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service