Saturday, December 22, 2012

Professor Urges Homeowners to Put Out "Gun Free" Signs

What exactly is the difference between this and a sign that reads "Rob Me I Am Unarmed"?

George Washington University Professor Amitai Etzioni writes:

We should not wait for our elected officials, in President Obama's good words, "to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." We should do our share. One way to proceed is to mark our homes, apartments and condos, with a "gun free" sign. Parents should notify their friends that they would be reluctant to send their child over for a play date unless the home was safe from guns. Residential communities should pass rules that ban bringing guns onto their premises, clearly marking them as gun free.
Anyone who puts up such signs will become an ambassador for gun control, because they are sure to be challenged by gun advocates to explain their anti-gun positions.
The Captain of Compton is also down for this move.


(ht Travis Holte)

29 comments:

  1. Well, the shooters will definitely know where to go to get away with shooting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You got that right...the ignorance of this is staggering and scary.

      Delete
  2. As a kid of the 80s and 90s, the Nirvana song "Rape Me" comes to mind.

    Maybe we should christen Amitai Etzioni the ambassador of invitational rape.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is he serious? Because he would be making a very good point if he's being sarcastic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Showing just how utterly moronic university professors can be.

    Hey guys, look at me being a gun control ambassador by painting this big bullseye on my house for any burglars or psychopaths.

    Makes sense, because that nut in Connecticut went into that elementary school with guns blazing precisely because he thought those kids were packing heat.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A professor.

    Fuck college and paying $25,000 a year to learn from shitheads like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? $25k a year? You must be from the 20th century.

      2012 annual cost of attending George Washington University:
      http://undergraduate.admissions.gwu.edu/costs-attendance

      Tuition plus basic fees is over $46,000. Room and board over $10,000.

      Imagine the kind of pre-tax income you'd need to cover 5 years of that in less than a decade.

      Delete
  6. Read the comments at HuffPoo - the vast majority (if not all of them) correctly call the prof out for his ignorance. Even liberals see how

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great idea. Everyone advocating repeal of the second amendment, de facto or otherwise, should do this. And then leave their doors unlocked.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Please PLEASE have the courage of your convictions to stand up and do this all you pro gun-control-law people. Put your money where your mouth is. PLEASE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No.... Put your house where your mouth is...

      Delete
  9. he's right...but he's missing the bigger picture...swimming pools kill more children than guns....we need to ban all swimming pools immediately..for the greater good of society

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you're going to announce your house is a gun-free zone, then why not announce your doors unlocked as well....might as well put the combination of your safe on the safe itself....and why stop there, put your SSN on it....what else am I forgetting....oh yeah, my car key is in the ignition.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The school probably had such a sign. Did it help?

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's hard to believe this is serious. If this isn't in the spirit of Andy Kaufman then send this to anyone looking to attend GWU.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's hard to believe this is serious. If this isn't in the spirit of Andy Kaufman then send this to anyone looking to attend GWU.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Perhaps if he added: Gun Free Zone, I am confident that the local police will protect me and my property

    Of course he probably lives in a gated community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Parents should notify their friends that they would be reluctant to send their child over for a play date unless the home was safe from guns."

      HaHaHa! What a moron. Thanks for the laugh.

      Better put away the steak knives too?
      And replace the forks with sporks?

      The nation is split about 60 - 40 on this issue, isn't it?

      With 60% against this line of thought.

      I guess that means 40 percent of the nation are morons then? ... Or lives in one of those immensely out of touch, gated communities? Same thing, maybe?

      Delete
  15. How about a sign that says " Born and Bred Dope inside please, come right in "

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think who ever came up with this idea checked their brains at the door. LOL Talk about someone that lives in an alternate reality.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The combination to the air shield is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iW-8xPw3k

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

    Here is a Democrat and liberal who completely blows apart all of the gun control arguments, especially on the AWB. Please make this go viral, Weznel and Chris! Here are some examples from the link:

    The National Institute of Justice found that the ban hadn’t reduced gun crime or crime involving “high capacity” magazines, and that the effects of renewing the ban were “likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” It then added: “Assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”[9]

    The Center for Disease Control released a study of gun control legislation, including the assault weapons ban and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[10]

    The National Research Council noted that all of the studies they had looked at “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small…”[11]

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

    This a GREAT article about being in the LA Riots unarmed back in 1992.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So sarcasm from non-liberals is somehow bad whereas liberal sarcasm, no matter how tasteless is allowable? Saul Alinsky would be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I tried one of these signs but the cops said I was "BAITING".
    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tried to put one up as well, but the cops take 30 minutes to respond in my city. I was stabbed, shot, and robbed and then my girlfriend raped infront of me while i died (actually happend not to long ago in this area) unfortunatly guns dont jump off the counter, load themselves and shoot people for you so i was out of luck

      Delete
  22. Let's talk about signals - which is, after all, exactly what signs are. Signs convey information; "Gun Free Zone" conveys exactly that and should perhaps be replaced with "No guns admitted beyond this point." The difference, of course, is that the latter says nothing at all about whether the host is armed. But in any case, that's beside my point.
    If my neighbor fortifies his house to reduce the likelihood of invasion, it makes sense for me to fortify mine as well, otherwise I become the relatively soft target. His fortification makes me more vulnerable; my fortification restores the balance. Fortify all the schools in the country and libraries become relatively more vulnerable. And fortification is costly: even if we could fortify our entire society (TSA, port security, etc.), we would only make the task of the assailant more difficult. A general reduction in vulnerability - even if uniformly possible - could be achieved at enormous cost, and would likely be only temporary. The aggressor's obvious response would be to increase his fire-power, putting us all back where we started in terms of individual and community risk.
    Seems to me that the more sensible course of action is for all the homeowners, schools, libraries, etc. to agree on laws to take some of the fire-power away from the domestic aggressors, much as our government has worked to reduce the capacities of foreign terrorists. It wouldn't stop violence, but it would reduce lethality more effectively than digging moats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "much as our government has worked to reduce the capacities of foreign terrorists." Your indoctrination is complete. Please move along.

      Delete