Thanks to John Burgess for the pointer.
UPDATE: Just to make this clear, it seems to me extremely unlikely that this is an actual permanent sign — I assume it’s either a Photoshop or a temporary sign put up just for the photograph. If this was a real sign, it would likely be pretty unneighborly and thus much less funny. (I say “likely” rather than “certainly” because one can imagine unneighborliness on the other guy’s part that might be adequate to justify such a response, or for that matter cheerful acceptance of the sign by the other guy as part of the neighbors’ continued good-humored debate on the subject; but that’s all highly hypothetical since, as I said, I doubt that there was actually such a real sign.) The humor is in the idea of the sign, not in the actual execution of such a sign.
Early Bird says:
My first thought was that the pointed-to neighbor could put up a sign that says “My next door neighbor is a douche,” but of course that’s self-evident and therefore unnecessary.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 2:53 pmGordo says:
If I neighbor put up a sign like that, I would consider buying a gun just so I could shoot him.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 2:57 pmJacob LaRow says:
meh
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:03 pmTeh Anonymous says:
The last sentence is the kind of thing that’s funny in a conversation. In this context, not so much. To me, anyway.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:08 pmEarly Two says:
I’m with Early Bird. My other reaction was that the sign itself also effectively reads: “I’m a jerk: Please vandalize my house and pretty shrubbery.”
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:09 pmBruce Hayden says:
I do think it funny, and I know which house I would break into if I were a burglar.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:11 pmhedberg says:
If you’re a criminal looking to steal some guns, you know which house to go to.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:11 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
I thought it was hilarious
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:12 pmAnonAnon says:
It also looks to be a bad Photoshop of an old joke.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:14 pmhedberg says:
“I do think it funny, and I know which house I would break into if I were a burglar.”
Assuming that the sign actually exists and accurately represents reality, I’d much rather break into the house where I know I could get some valuable stuff that could be easily sold rather than the house next door where I would likely score some left-over pot roast and a 15 yo VCR.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:20 pmTal says:
Maybe I’m completely blind but I’m pretty sure this is a photoshop job. Breathe...
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:20 pmAnderson says:
Poor Photoshop, funny sign.
... Now, if an armed robber attacks the neighbors, and cites the sign as a basis for his doing so, do they have a tort suit against Dave Kopel — excuse me, against the sign-posting neighbor, WHOEVER that person may be?
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:23 pmAnderson says:
Compare: “My neighbor is a feeble 90-year-old woman who can’t defend herself, and the dog you hear barking is a Pomeranian. Rob her, not me!”
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:26 pmDennis N says:
Funny joke. Not so funny reality.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:26 pmBruce Boyden says:
If this sign was real, I would say: not funny. Because it’s not very neighborly, whatever the difference of opinion. I would say the same about a sign with an arrow that read: “Attention Police: be aware that my next door neighbor is armed.”
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:35 pmDan Weber says:
This triggers similar neural pathways as the “let’s expose who signed the Proposition 8 petition” discussion.
While I think they have a legal right to do that, there are so many assumptions being made that are just ignored for the sake of (supposedly) teaching someone a lesson.
EDIT to add: It’s no one’s business if I have guns in my house. It’s also no one’s business if I don’t have guns in my house.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:43 pmEugene Volokh says:
Folks: I’m with Bruce Boyden; I quite doubt that this is a real scenario, and suspect it’s either a PhotoShop or a staged photo of a sign that was temporarily put up for the occasion. That’s why I found the sign funny, rather than unneighborly and therefore much less likely to be funny (though the neighborliness question is somewhat contextual — one can imagine situations in which the neighbor’s previous actions might have invited this sort of reaction).
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:48 pmOren says:
Yeah, I don’t get it either. My neighbors and I disagree about politics all the time but I never thought to make a public spectacle (let alone an insult) over our difference of opinion.
It’s just politics people, learn to disagree politely — you’ll end up with much more support that way anyway.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:51 pmBill Woods says:
I was wondering about the backstory that led to such a sign being posted. I hadn’t thought of Photoshop.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:53 pmPreferred Customer says:
This was literally my exact thought.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:57 pmPragmaticist says:
If the sign were real it would be legal, no? (Assume there aren’t zoning laws banning signs on lawns.)
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:10 pmKarl Lembke says:
My guess is Photoshop. Otherwise, why would the sign be so perfectly squared with the borders of the photo, despite the left signpost entering the lawn slightly closer to the sidewalk than the right one?
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:15 pmrmd says:
This is exactly the issue that came to my mind first. Ignoring the likelihood that the sign shown doesn’t actually exist, what would be the legal implications? Anderson’s second example seems especially egregious and downright immoral, but is it actually actionable? Isn’t this is in some sense what we are doing when we install security lights and put up those little “Protected by Blah Blah Security Services” yard signs? Isn’t the actual message to potential wrong-doers “go find a softer target?” Are there legal and/or ethical issues involved in trying to deflect crime away from oneself and towards others who are less defensible?
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:25 pmRyan Waxx says:
You’re talking to the wrong side — the pro-gunners aren’t the ones fantasizing about vandalizing the house of the guy with the “wrong” politics.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:27 pmBruce Hayden says:
Though I thought the sign was cute, I also vote for PhotoShop. If you scroll by the photo, the curb is slightly skewed, but the sign is exactly aligned with the top and bottom of the photo.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:28 pmBruce Hayden says:
I blew up the photo, and I think that it is even more obviously done with PhotoShop (etc.) It appears that the sign was placed over a .jpeg background, and then the red arrow on top of that. Again, I am no expert, but it sure looks to me that the sign and the arrow have only gone through one .jpeg compression, and everything else has gone through more compressions. The sign, and, in particular, the red arrow, are just too clean compared to the rest of the photo, down at a level where you can see the pixels.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:37 pmRandy says:
I think it would be even funnier if in fact the neighbor DID have guns. Big ones at that. And then the hapless burgler comes in, thinking that it’s an easy pick-off, and hoo-boy! Imagine his surprise!
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:42 pmApu Nahasapasapeemipetilon says:
that’s not even a photoshop, it looks more like an MS paint job.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:50 pmChrisTS says:
rmd:
Sure, the ‘protected by’ signs are intended to put off intruders. But, they are not intended to direct potential intruders anywhere else, and certainly not to a specific house.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:51 pmguest1 says:
pretty clearly a photoshop, imo, given the brightness of the white border surrounding the sign, in contrast to the otherwise overcast conditions.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 4:52 pmAlphecca » Signs for our Times says:
[...] Heh! Over at Volokh. [...]
EMG says:
OK, so it’s Photoshop. I thought that was obvious at first glance, but then I’m a graphics geek.
I’m more interested in the (hypothetical) legal question. Suppose the neighbor’s child is killed in a home invasion while that sign is up. The sign doesn’t then come into play as some kind of incitement, or...? Are the responding LEOs just going to shrug off the presence of a sign like that at a neighboring home, as the coroners wheel out the body? Or could the neighbor sue?
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:02 pmZeus Shika (zsu/234) says:
I would vote photoshop(no shadows)but thats not the point,the point is the sign is right.
If the neighbor a scared of guns and wants to rely on 911 no problem as long as he don’t expect his neighbor to bail him out of trouble(I wouldn’t).
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:06 pmEugene Volokh says:
Folks: If there were such a sign, there wouldn’t be any legal problem with it. It’s not incitement, because the (hypothetical) speaker wouldn’t be trying to provoke imminent illegal conduct, or for that matter trying to provoke illegal conduct at all — I doubt that he would be trying to incite a burglary so much as urging burglars to shift their attentions to a different house. Nor is it likely to actually provoke such a burglary, since I suspect that few burglars would find the sign to be particularly credible. Why trust a total stranger’s claim about the defensive weaponry in a house?
One might argue (if one didn’t buy the preceding two sentences) that this is crime-facilitating speech, and thus a form of aiding and abetting (perhaps criminal or perhaps just tortious), in that it provides people with information about which house is safer to burglarize. This information, the argument would go, might not be intended to persuade people to commit a crime (the subject matter of incitement law), but it still is information that helps people safely commit a crime. But for the reasons I mention in that article, I think such speech should be constitutionally protected; and, more importantly, I really don’t think (again, see the last two sentences of the preceding paragraph) that the speech is materially crime-facilitating.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:13 pmGramarye says:
I admit I laughed, because that’s because the one person I know who might put up a sign like that would (a) really not mean anything malicious by it, and (b) would very possibly, notwithstanding any representations of nonintervention he might have made on such a sign, politely (but with heavy firepower) request that anyone robbing the neighbors kindly return their spoils to the rightful owner, even if said owner didn’t see eye-to-eye with him on Second Amendment rights. (He’d call the police, too, of course.)
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:21 pmChrisTS says:
When I lived in NYC, I saw a car with a smashed window and a note taped on the front. The note, in one hand, read something like “Please, guys, you’ve hit me four times and there really is nothing left to take.” In another hand it read “Just checking.”
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:22 pmjack burton says:
It’s an old joke that’s been floating around the anti/pro gun arguments for decades. That, along with the challenge to the anti folk to put up a similar sign declaring their “gun free zone” on their own lawn.
When I sold home security systems I had no problem refering to the little blue sign as a “steal from my neighbor” sign in front of the homeowner.
If I had an unlimited budget I would have no problem posting billboard signs up and down the Indiana/Illinois border reminding criminals and thugs that the Hoosier citizens can legally carry but the Illinios citizens have to follow the “defenseless lambs” method of self-defense.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:26 pmRoger Thistle says:
I believe that there was a situation similar to this recently. A neighbor put up a sign with a similar message pointing to his neighbor. The neighbor was some sort of politian known for being anti-2A and thought all citizens should be disarmed. Hense the gun owner next door who put up his sign...
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:27 pmEMG says:
You don’t see the distinction between not acting to protect someone, and going out of your way to alert criminals to his vulnerability?
I thought part of the point of widespread gun ownership was to make it so that criminals don’t know who has guns and are thereby dissuaded from attacking anyone. Not sure how that’s supposed to mesh with publicly humiliating non-owners. I know, I know — the (hypothetical) neighbor here isn’t a mere non-owner, but a gun-banner. But I wouldn’t trust someone antisocial enough to put up such a sign to gauge fine distinctions in opposing points of view — and I imagine that living next to such an aggressive gun-owner would be enough to put an uninformed fence-sitter over the edge into abolitionism.
Eugene wants us to imagine that there’s a history bad enough to justify the sign; but we’ve probably all got that one relative who goes ballistic on unassuming, apolitical Cousin Mary and brands her a raging socialist just because she unthinkingly repeated some liberal truism over Thanksgiving dinner. The hypothetical sign-maker would be that guy. Inviting people to murder your neighbors is a few shades farther than otherwise reasonable people could ever be driven by even the most intense ideological disagreement.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:27 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Actually, if the police were about to execute a no-knock warrant on the house with the armed neighbor, I think it would be a good thing all around if they knew the neighbor was armed. Might think twice about the advisability of not knocking.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:28 pmAnderson says:
I doubt that he would be trying to incite a burglary so much as urging burglars to shift their attentions to a different house.
It’s reasonably foreseeable however that, whatever the sign’s intent, its effect might well be to provoke a burglary. If that’s a relevant test.
Nor is it likely to actually provoke such a burglary, since I suspect that few burglars would find the sign to be particularly credible.
Sounds like a jury question to me. Burglars don’t typically enter their line of work because of their smarts.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:35 pmDennis N says:
They’d be more likely to blow down the door and come in throwing stun grenades. They don’t exactly knock politely when raiding a known gang house.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:50 pmOren says:
Yup. It’s always the other guy whose politics are immoral.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:56 pmRandom Nuclear Strikes » Hey, I’d put it in my yard says:
[...] h/t: Volokh. [...]
Laura(southernxyl) says:
I was thinking of Cory Maye. He didn’t have a known gang house — the guy on the other side of the duplex was thought to be a drug dealer.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:58 pmEMG says:
Well, if I were a burglar and I saw that, I would think “there’s something weird going on here, that I shouldn’t get into the middle of.” But many criminals are stupid and have poor impulse control.
Of course, a burglar following through is only somewhat more unlikely than the sign existing in the first place; but this is a hypothetical discussion.
Well, it doesn’t matter whether you think it’s likely that a crime would actually take place, because we’re talking about the (admittedly unlikely) hypothetical where it does. I disagree with you as to whether the speech is encouraging or persuading. “Promise” is a pretty strong word and seems to initiate some kind of relationship between the sign-maker and the potential criminal — offering an assurance on which the criminal can depend for the execution of the crime. Even if the promised behavior is perfectly legal — the sign-maker is under no obligation to protect his neighbor — there’s a difference between merely doing something, and providing an assurance that one will do it.
Is “don’t rob me — rob him!” really indistinguishable from “don’t rob me”? Why throw in the suggestion that instead of attacking noone, the criminal should attack a third party instead — an explicitly identified third party, at that? And you can’t just assume that the criminal was going to attack someone and it was just a question of who. If the owner of the sign had instead just stated that he was a gun-owner, the criminal could plausibly have decided to avoid surrounding houses as well, either because he would be afraid armed neighbors would intervene, or on the logic that people in the same neighborhood often have shared cultural tendencies. And even if he were inevitably going to rob someone, it doesn’t follow that he would have robbed this particular neighbor. That’s what the big red arrow, and the explicit “promise” not to intervene on behalf of specific persons, are for.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:09 pmDr. T says:
I could easily imagine someone putting up that sign after being obnoxiously lectured by a neighbor about the badness of gun ownership and the goodness of reliance on police protection. I see nothing legally actionable about the sign (assuming the neighbor truly is opposed to gun ownership).
Some posters commented that burglars wanting to steal guns would go to the house with the sign. But, if they aren’t home, they’re probably carrying their pistols with them. And, if they are home, the burglary escalates to robbery, and the robber better be a crack shot under pressure.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:15 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
I submit it is extremely UN-neighborly to do anything at all to take guns away from honest, decent citizens. Those who support gun control care less it they put others at risk.
In my view, EVERY person should have to read the story after story after story in the NRAs magazine section named the “Armed Citizen” In case after case after case, their being able to get to their gun, saved a grand mother, grandfather man, women, or child from being robbed or beaten or raped or killed (or all of them) by some low life scum.
And of course, there are stories where someone used their gun to save others.
http://www.nrapublications.org/ac/index.asp
And you can google to see more cases of where guns have saved decent people
Oh yea, in MANY cases the guns are not even pointed toward the bad guys much less actually fired at them. Just seeing the person is armed is enough.
While I got this picture sent to me a week or so ago, between my 74 year old eyes (no glasses yet) and my old WebTV, I could not read it.
Now, after seeing it in all it’s glory, I had an AH HA moment.
I think ALL those of us who are informed and smart enough to support Gun Rights and Right to Carry laws, should get many of these signs made.
And then we should post them where ever any anti-gunners live.
After all, why should we have to shoot someone who is breaking into our home to beat, rob, rape, kill us and/or our loved ones, when they could go do it to someone who is so dumb as to believe the police will always be there to protect them?
Crimes take seconds to minutes. It takes cops time to get there (AFTER and IF) they are called about there being a problem.
Ever see what happens in Riots or natural distasters when the police are either over whelmed OR totally unable to even get to a person to help them?
I’ve little respect for the anti-gun crowd as they are illogical, uninformed,
irrational & selfish!
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:26 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Seems obvious to me. If guns are banned, as Neighbor wants, then nobody would have them, and all criminals would know that no one had them. The sign merely puts Neighbor in the same position he’d be in if his position were adopted and guns were banned. Presently Neighbor benefits from the deterrance factor of armed citizens even while he opposes it. This simply deprives Neighbor of the safety he gains from having his neighbors armed. And reminds everyone that a gun ban would put them all in Neighbor’s shoes.
The last sentence is actually the funniest part.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:34 pmPublius says:
Obviously PhotoShopped, there’s no shadow from the sign. But highly amusing.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:37 pmBruce Hayden says:
No, I don’t think that the person with the sign gets burglarized. The burglar is in a lose-lose situation. If he kills the homeowner, he is liable to get felony murder. If he gets killed, the homeowner likely walks on self defense. Rather, I will suggest that the idea that the burglar would burgle the home with the sign to get the gun is wishful thinking, and fails the reality test. There are still places in this country where many people don’t lock their doors, and they almost invariably are places with very high (legal) gun ownership.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:37 pmEMG says:
Sandy MacHoots, read the rest of my comment. You’re assuming that the guy with the sign is a good judge of others’ characters, a prudent man. But the sign itself proves he’s not.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:43 pmFloridan says:
Here’s another hilarious sign: ” Parents! Before you let your children play with my next door neighbor’s children, be aware that the father keeps loaded guns in the house.”
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:56 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Years ago, Morton Grove, In. passed a stupid law making it illegal for anyone who lived there to own a gun.
This so incensed a town in Ga, (whose name I don’t remember right now) passed a law which not only required all citizens own a gun, it required them to carry a gun with them whenever they left their home.
The result of this law in Ga, was to cause the crime rate to DROP a full three months BEFORE the law even went into effect. And, as I understand it, while the law is not enforced, the crime rate in this town has remained lower than the crime rate in any of the surrounding cities and towns.
Next, the Israelis have found something Americans will be learning when Moslem Fanatical terrorists start (As they WILL) using AK’s to kill us here in the US.
It is an well armed citizenry is an effective way to combat terroroists and lessen the number us they kill.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 6:59 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
EMG must be an OBOT
making statments they hae no proof are true.
JUST exactly HOW does the sign PROVE
he is a prudent man.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 7:04 pmjack burton says:
Here’s an even better hilarious sign: ” Parents! Before you let your children play with my next door neighbor’s children, be aware that their parents believe they’ll rummage through your closets and drawers.”
Quote
October 29, 2009, 7:14 pmwolfefan says:
It’s Morton Grove, Illinois and Kennesaw, Georgia. If Kennesaw can require heads of households to buy guns (and there are a lot of exemptions), could it require them to buy health insurance?
Quote
October 29, 2009, 7:34 pmChrisTS says:
Because, heaven knows, kids never poke around.
So happy to see that Neil did not have a fatal stroke, just one that has impaired his linguistic functioning.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 7:38 pmKha Khan says:
My first thought was that this might wind up being an example of crime facilitating speech.
Criminals see sign and think, “Thanks for the tip.” Criminals proceed to neighbors’ house and slaughter the family.
Person who put up the sign, and his supporters, feel vindicated. After all, if his neighbors had not been stupid idiots who wanted to ban handguns, they wouldn’t have been slaughtered. Darwinism in action.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 8:02 pmjack burton says:
Sorry... my kids were taught to not “poke around” in someone else’s home. Perhaps your children had a different experience.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 8:05 pmBrett Bellmore says:
Quite possibly; Constitutionally, the federal government has a few enumerated powers which exist amid a sea of rights, while the situation for the state governments is the converse: The Constitution permits them to do anything it doesn’t explicitly forbid. States can, thus, do a lot of things which aren’t remotely constitutional at the federal level.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 8:35 pmRandy says:
Jack: “Perhaps your children had a different experience.”
My cousin did. When he was about eight, he went to a friend’s house, whose dad is a cop. They were playing, and the friend said, hey, I know where my dad keeps his gun. Wanna see it? Cousin says yes, and friend gets the gun. They started playing, and yup, friend accidently shot my cousin in the face.
Had the bullet gone just a bit further in, or just to the left or right, he would have been dead. Fortunately, he didn’t die, but did require several years of physical and mental therapy to get his brain working properly. Today, you’d never know it — no scars on the face, and perfectly normal. (This happened back in the mid-80s). He was lucky.
And you would think that a cop, of all people, would know how to properly house a gun. But just goes to show you that guns are still very dangerous even when the people who owned them are trained.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 8:37 pmDavidwhitewolf says:
It’s not an exact parallel, but it’s close: if the first two lines of the sign said “My Next-Door Neighbor wants to Ban Blacks from Voting” would commenters feel any different about it then? Gun-banners are just as bigoted IMO; they’re trying to restrict exercise of a fundamental civil right.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 8:43 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Funny Sign -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Duane Lester and mavickers, DiaBOTical. DiaBOTical said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Funny Sign http://bit.ly/1rKjxf [...]
Robb Allen says:
Ownership of firearms do not make a house immune from robbery even if the thieves are aware of the danger. If criminals were smart, they wouldn’t have to burgle.
The decision to not have a firearm at home doesn’t mean the homeowners are defenseless. It simply means they don’t happen to have a specific tool in which to defend themselves.
The difference though, between anti-gunners and pro-gun people like myself are that I have no desire to force people to own something they have no desire to do (and yes, I disagree with the Kennesaw law).
I have no moral issue with the sign at all insofar as the concept that the gun banning neighbor is simply getting exactly what he’s demanding. When the law is that you cannot own a firearm, then the criminals will have less chance of ballistics assisted perforation when robbing houses. The sign is meant to illustrate to the neighbor why that is a bad idea.
Is it in good taste? How would I know? It’s just a picture (and a photoshopped one at that). I don’t know the backstory. If I lived next to Paul Helmke, I’d be more than inclined to put one up myself. But just a neighbor who badmouths my gun collection? No.
As for the kids thing — I have two wonderful daughters, 4 & 7. I have guns in the house. My girls can recite to you exactly what to do if they find one, be it here or at a friend’s house. You see, I love my children so much that I teach them to avoid as many dangers as I can. Don’t play with knives or matches, don’t talk to strangers, stay away from poisons, and if you find a gun, do not touch it, leave the room, and tell an adult.
What I don’t do is pretend that there aren’t knives, matches, poisons, strangers, or guns and hope they’ll never run into them.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 8:47 pmuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by I_Am_Addie: Funny Sign http://ff.im/-aHRhn...
Oren says:
Yes, we cannot possibly respect people whose views disagree with ours! I’m embarrassed to support gun rights in league with this kind of idiocy.
This is an exception. I live in a neighborhood of cops and they all keep their guns in a combination safe. The last thing any sane personal wants is a robber shotting them with their own weapon.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 8:59 pmjack burton says:
I am glad your cousin was not hurt any further than he was but you bring up several points...
1) You can’t legislate against foolishness or incompetency.
2) Any parent owning firearms is responsible for ensuring that their kids are “firearm proofed.” A child as young as eight can know the difference between right and wrong, and yes, even with poor impulse control teaching them is still feasible. It’s when guns are hidden, not talked about, and exotic, that they gain the lure of the forbidden.
3) Kids are going to learn about guns... from TV... from the street/friends... or from a responsible adult. Even if a parent abhors guns it is their responsiblity that their children learn more than just “guns are bad.” My kids were taught exactly what to do in that same circumstance as your cousin... and it didn’t involve staying there to play. There was nothing “special” or enticing about a gun that would be powerful enough to overcome what they were taught. I’m not a super-parent... but I knew enough to know that I wanted my kids to really be safe... and not just “hopin’ and wishin’”
4) And while any child being hurt by any means can be a tragedy to the community and families involved... the truth of the matter is that there are 80 million homes with guns in them... and each year there are less than 50 children across the nation who are acciddently injured by one. That is about .001 percent of the homes, and is a record that is much safer than bikes, skateboards, swimming pools, and many other common household items.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 9:05 pmMikee says:
When reading comments in blog posts about firearms I look for new arguments. I have not seen any since before Heller went to the Supreme Court. Reading a few of those amicus briefs for and against self defense in one’s home with a firearm, essentially every pro and anti argument was aired. It was enlightening.
I challenge anyone interested in the subject to read all those amicus briefs and see which side makes more sense, when essentially every argument ever made is considered in one small stack of documents.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 9:21 pmSandy MacHoots says:
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what exactly I missed. I took the sign to be a political statement about the desirability of having an armed populace, not a criminal deterrant applied to a specific home. Where I live it’s common to have signs that say, “Warning: Burglars will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.”
The additional statement is plainly there (at least to me) to draw the distinction between a place known to be armed and a place known to be disarmed.
Am I not understanding your point?
Quote
October 29, 2009, 9:31 pmMalvolio says:
It doesn’t show that — it shows that guns are still very dangerous even when the people who own them are cops, who are notoriously ill-trained when it comes to firearms. A friend of mine once had to go to police station to retrieve a gun that had been misappropriated. “Don’t worry,” the desk sergeant told him. “We emptied it.” My friend worked the slide and popped one more cartridge out of the chamber.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 9:52 pmDan Hamilton says:
Both Federal and State Constitutions specify militias. Therefore the State or Feds can require those who are defined as being in the militia to be armed. There is no authority to force people to buy health insurance. Where does the gov get the authority to force people to buy health insurance?
Quote
October 29, 2009, 10:41 pmIgnoto Fiorentino says:
The fake sign is mildly clever, though very hostile. [“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” makes the same point much more elegantly, and without the fantasy of personalized violence against a gun opponent.] What’s not funny are all the hostile and aggressive gun rights advocates posting comments on this blog, or that Eugene thinks it’s a good idea to stoke their hostility.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 10:41 pmOren says:
Please don’t judge the legal cause by the loudest idiots. Thanks in advance.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 10:59 pmDyspeptic Curmudgeon says:
I think this is a photoshop job.
And it is based on a cartoon which had the same sign.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 11:12 pmjack burton says:
yeppers... hostile comments such as
“If I neighbor put up a sign like that, I would consider buying a gun just so I could shoot him.”
and
“...the sign itself also effectively reads: “I’m a jerk: Please vandalize my house and pretty shrubbery.””
sure do show the hostility of the gun rights advocates...
Oh...wait... I’m sorry. Those were some of the comments made by the other side. My bad...
Quote
October 29, 2009, 11:12 pmEMG says:
I don’t see that a sign so fraught with personal hostility can be seen as a mere political statement. You want to make a political statement, make a political statement. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and the elaboration of superficially rational arguments for why bullying is justified in this instance comes off as creepy. In a free society there’s no reason to answer advocacy of a point of view (even a highly objectionable one) with personal aggression.
The implicit thread running through all this is that anti-gunners are terrible, terrible people who richly deserve whatever the criminal element can throw at them. A true patriot — a person who loves his country and its people –would never wish for anything but an across-the-board reduction in criminal violence against his fellow citizens, regardless of their personal characteristics or beliefs. This thread shows that for too many gun rights advocates, it’s not about freedom and security as much as it is about an adolescent fantasy of shooting it out with the bad guys while wusses eat dirt.
I’m dismayed but very far from surprised that although I am pro-Second Amendment, I have been taken for a gun control advocate because I didn’t join in to wish death at the hands of criminals on gun controllers and their children. Even as a joke!
This is a perfect example of why many pro-RKBA people like myself keep far, far away from actually existing gun culture.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 11:24 pmRandy says:
Jack: ”) You can’t legislate against foolishness or incompetency.....
All points are true. Nonetheless, all the best precautions can and will fail from time to time. And I’m sure that the actual numbers of injured may be small, but they still exist.
of course, we can’t legislate or expect 100% safety. I have no solutions, but people need to be aware that guns do in fact sometimes kill or injure innocent people.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 12:33 amLarryA says:
In my neck of the woods that would result in invitations to go to the range.
And now I have to organize a shooting class for a bunch of kids. (Actually, I’d refer them to the excellent 4-H Shooting Sports program.)
Quote
October 30, 2009, 4:17 amroad2serfdom says:
People are generally aware of the dangers of guns. In fact, most people probably overestimate the danger, which may be why the accident rate is so low. Especially compared to less inherently dangerous (in peoples’ minds not reality) objects like pools, antifreeze containers, five gallon buckets, bathtubs, etc.
Using resources to increase knowlege in the dangers of bathtubs would do more good than using those same resources to convince people that guns are more dangerous than the currently believe.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 4:27 amGabriel McCall says:
Dan Weber: It’s no one’s business if I have guns in my house. It’s also no one’s business if I don’t have guns in my house.
If you want to keep your household disarmed, that’s your business. If you are engaged in efforts to disarm my household, that’s my business. The sign-posting neighbor’s beef is not that his neighbor is unarmed, but that he supports bans.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 9:28 amPintler says:
Some 2006 unintentional fatality numbers from WISQARS:
Firearm 642
Pedestrian 6162
Pedal Cyclist 926
Poisoning 27531
Drowning 3579
Every death is a tragedy, whether from a hard hit baseball or hunting accident, but guns are just one of the risks out there. You want to be careful with the bicycle, boat, and pool as well.
I got the numbers by going here and selecting individual causes. There are easier to use reports, but this was the first one in the list.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 9:58 amegd says:
So do knives, matches, antifreeze, and a host of other household dangers.
I wonder if there’s some anti-knife group that monitors how many kids are killed annually by playing with knives.
And it would be amusing if this guy’s neighbor put up such a sign.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 10:32 amdusty says:
The sign would be unneighborly if the person were a felon, or crazy, and couldn’t legally own a gun. It is perfectly fine if the person can legally own a gun, but chooses not to.
I’m pretty sure the State of Virginia has that sign up, by the bridge going into DC.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 10:57 amRichard Aubrey says:
It’s one thing to choose not to own a gun.
That’s a choice. Being a 90-lb, 85-yr old woman with a pampered pomeranian is not a choice.
Nor do the latter work actively to make everybody a 90-lb, 85 yr old woman eligible only for pomeranians.
If the sign were actual, I’d read into it a history not only of a gun-banner next door, but an obnoxious arguer personally. The kind who uses up other people’s patience, depending on the strictures of society for his safety from those he pisses off.
I don’t see a sign like this–if it were real–posted just because the neighbor is anti 2A
Quote
October 30, 2009, 11:32 amDennis N says:
He’s the guy that was shot in a drug raid on the wrong house, right? I agree it was a screwup and a tragedy. But putting om my metaphorical flak jacket and SWAT helmet, if I thought I was going into a place with armed criminals, as they did with Cory Maye, I’d be going in at full speed and at high alert. Armed citizen or not, the cops don’t set out to shoot someone, but they powerfully don’t want to give the perps any advantage of warning. Shock and surprise save lives. The victim probably would not have been shot if they threw a stun bomb into his bedroom before startling him.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 11:42 amIgnoto Fiorentino says:
Just goes to show that all kinds of people, with different views on gun regulation and rights, can harbor violent revenge fantasies, and that Eugene’s fake photo managed to provoke people on both sides . I’m more concerned about such attitudes when they’re held by people who have actually managed to get themselves in possession of deadly weapons, even though we can agree that only a very tiny proportion of people with such attitudes ever act on them. But my point is that “humor” that panders to such fantasies is not good for public political discourse.
And please don’t advocate the legal case in ways that forseeably result in stirring up the loudest idiots. Subtle demagogy is still demagogy.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 11:54 amDennis N says:
This is a good reason why all children should also be trained. The NRA’s Eddie The Eagle program is a goods place to start, but it has been hysterically opposed by the education community, and not employed. At the primary school level, the teaching points are simply:
If you see a gun:
1. Don’t touch it.
2. Leave the area.
3 Tell an adult.
I drill the grandkids in that periodically.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 11:57 amKarl Lembke says:
Are there any among the commenters here who do not own deadly weapons? I cook with several deadly weapons, including a nice cleaver I bought in a Chinese market. I also drive a deadly weapon to work every day.
And I still have my archery tackle from college, though I’d probably want to check the bow for wear, and maybe replace the limbs before using it.
I think everyone here, fantasizing or not, could find plenty of things perfectly suited to killing people, just rummaging around their homes.
Quote
October 30, 2009, 12:57 pmAdam says:
Creepy. I wouldn’t want to live next to that (fictional) homeowner ... or the creepy weirdo who photoshopped it ... or the creepy, antisocial weirdoes who think it’s funny to make light of burglarly or home invasion.
Ironically, today’s the day that FeedRinse accidentally sent me the whole VC feed, instead of just Kerr’s and Elwood’s posts — now I see what I’ve been missing!
(Let’s hope that FeedRinse starts working again. Pronto.)
Quote
October 30, 2009, 2:04 pmphaedrus says:
I believe the address of this house with the sign is 1602 Pensylvania Ave Washington DC
Quote
October 30, 2009, 3:37 pmSam Corl says:
This may be a fake, or maybe not. For those who think no one would ever do such a thing, see this link:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081027/NEWS/810270310?Title=Medical-pot-s-side-effects
Quote:
“Gardea said reading about that case was one reason he decided to erect a sign outside his home stating, “Please don’t pull a home invasion here. Indoor buds are next door at #116. See Alan.”
Quote
October 30, 2009, 7:27 pmdimwitted says:
Wow! Thanks for the explanation.
:)
Quote
October 31, 2009, 3:42 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
RAMDY should get a clue!
Legal Guns are used an AVERAGE of ONE and a HALF MILLION times a year to STOP low lifes from committing a crime.
In MOST of these cases, the gun is NOT even fired and in MANY cases the gun is not even pointed toward the criminal.
I have used a gun to prevent a crime and so as an former lady friend.
Quote
November 1, 2009, 2:20 amNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Finally, Intelligent Gun Legislation
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont’s own Constitution very carefully.
His strict interpretation of these documents is popping eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun owners” and require them to pay a $500
fee to the state.
Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun
Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, it is a clear mandate to do so.
He believes universal gun ownership was
advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals.
Vermont’s constitution states explicitly “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” & those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent.”
Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so they are capable of responding to “any situation may arise.”
Under the bill, adults who choose to not own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state.
“There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says.
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state.
And it’s currently the only state allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation
“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
Quote
November 1, 2009, 6:19 pmPeter says:
I have an acquaintance who, whenever he knows I’m carrying, will ask me ‘Peter, if we were walking down the street and some one tried to mug/kill me, would you shoot them?’
I always have to respond, ‘Probably not. If I did, you’d never learn the lesson...’
Quote
November 2, 2009, 8:57 amNewbury says:
To Denis N.
Cory Maye is the poor bastard who is in prison, because the SWAT team blasted into his house, *the wrong house*, without warning, and he shot a cop. He got rail-roaded with a murder charge. There is some evidence which raises the implication that the cops lied about exactly what happened, although it is clear they stormed the wrong half of the house.
So a sign ‘Don’t burgle here: the dealer is next door’ might have been useful, if only to point the ignorant storm-troopers in the correct direction.
Quote
November 2, 2009, 6:15 pmetinzon says:
All this discussion sounds extremely funny in Europe. Of course we are not allowed to own guns . But , hey , why should this bother me at all? our crime rate is not even a quarter of the USA one !
Quote
November 2, 2009, 6:52 pm