In what was probably meant to be an edgy bit of click-bait, H.A. Goodman writes that there are three reasons that black men should embrace the practice of open carrying firearms.

1. Openly carrying a gun legally (in an open-carry state) is a public display indicating that an individual does not have a criminal record. This alone undermines the basis behind racial profiling.

2. The epidemic of disproportionate force utilized against black men in America warrants an alternative, and legal, solution to this problem.

3. The vast majority of African-American men will never commit a crime, so it’s time America realizes this fact. If openly carrying a gun will help our country overcome centuries of prejudice pertaining to skin color, then it’s an option that should be pursued.

The problem, of course, is that not one of the three arguments is logical. They are all assumptions, and we all know what happens when you “assume.”

For example, open carrying simply means that you want to open carry a firearm, and Goodman doesn’t indicate that he understands the difference between open carrying a firearm (legal in most jurisdictions), and brandishing one (illegal in most jurisdictions).

The likelihood that you will be stopped by police is increased when you open carry in some areas, but open carrying a firearm doesn’t necessarily mean that the person is law-abiding than driving a car on a public road assures that you have a valid license. This is his assumption, not a fact.

Sadly, this is the closest he comes to making an logical statement in an article rife with ignorance.

Moving on to his second point, Goodman doesn’t provide a rational and reasoned argument for why more open carry will lead to a reduction in what he calls an “epidemic” of “disproportionate force.” For that matter, he doesn’t even provide factual evidence to support that there even is an “epidemic of disproportionate force” outside of the mainstream media’s hysterical race-baiting. Once again, he makes an unwarranted assumption, and simply fails to support it with another other than half truths and misguided anecdotes.

Last, but by no means least, he doesn’t provide a coherent argument how open carry will reduce prejudice. It’s almost as if he’s completely thrown in the towel by the time he approaches the end of the article… or merely has merely given up due to the absurdity of it.

* * *

Goodman argues from emotion, and repeatedly makes factual errors in his piece ( for example, NICS checks are not required for all gun purchases, which he gets wrong in the very first sentence after introducing his first argument). He repeatedly confuses his opinion with facts, leaves out key details of the cases he claims support his position, apparently can’t tell the difference between a grand jury’s refusal to indict and a not guilty verdict after a jury trial.

His piece is 2,000 words of emoting, and it’s an exercise in incoherence.

* * *

We’ve stated before that we’re not big fans of open carry from a tactical perspective, but we don’t have anything against it from a moral or legal perspective as long as safety considerations are adequately addressed.

We simply don’t see where Goodman makes a rational, fact-supported argument for any of his three points.

Period.