Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

So-called “gun free zones” have never been known to prevent a single violent crime and even the CeaseFire president has acknowledged that “this won’t stop someone determined to cause violence but we hope that standing together and giving businesses a tool to say no to guns will change the conversation around gun violence.”

That is dangerously self-delusional and it is one more exercise of symbolism over substance that makes neighborhoods less safe by creating risk-free environments for robbers, rapists and other criminals.

Alan Gottlieb
August 19, 2013
[Self-delusional, symbolism, and dangerous. Yup. That about sums it up.

And don’t forget that we had the “conversation” for the last 40+ years. It’s time these guys got over the fact that they lost every argument.—Joe]


11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

  1. Any store any where displaying these signs has decided they do not want my business. Fair warning.

  2. I want to puke wehenever I hear the English word “conversation” abused like it is here.

    To these civil rights troglodytes, a “conversation” on guns is nothing more than an opportunity to throw their weight around and bully everyone into accepting un-Constitutional gun control.

    An actual conversation is supposed to be spontaneous and voluntary communication. This doesn’t fit the definition of the word.

    When you hear anyone suggest conversation on this topic, just say no, that’s not conversation.

  3. I think calling it “symbolism over substance” understates things and should be avoided. Those words suggest something that doesn’t work but is harmless. The next sentence, correctly, contradicts that, of course.
    So it isn’t so much symbolism, as it is substance that goes in the wrong direction — it actually hurts, rather than helping or even merely doing nothing. A particularly good example is Aurora, where the bad guy chose the only place with a guns banned sign, skipping over both larger and closer cinemas in doing so.

  4. “Symbolism to hide substance” would be the more accurate description. The symbolism (fighting “gun violence”) is the fraudulent selling point. It’s a lie. It’s the “Com’on, Baby; Get in my van and put on these handcuffs. We’ll have a great time, I promise” sort of lie. It doesn’t get any worse. Gun restrictions are not and never have been about improving crime or safety numbers. That’s just the selling point to hide the substance.

    The substance is the weakening of western civilization, particularly the Judeo-Christian culture, which is the focus of hatred among comunists, jihadists and the more common kinds of criminals everywhere.

    When I hear this drivel about “having a conversation” it sounds like this, set in 1930s Germany;
    “It’s time we had a serious conversation about the Jewish problem.”

    • That some people fall for the lie (that gun restrictions are to reduce crime and increase public safety) should be no reason for us to treat the lie as some sort of genuine assertion of a genuine belief. We don’t have to humor the fools or the insane who fooled them. To go along with it, and to argue against it as though it’s a genuine belief, is to show that we’re not getting it, that we’re falling for it ourselves to an extent.

      No! That puts the enemy in charge of the dialog. To take charge of the situation is to dismiss the insanity, calling it exactly what it is– pure, hateful, destructive, criminal insanity. Once we’ve put it aside, and I mean really dismissed it for good, we can then begin to look at prosecutions and better protections. But as long as we’re jumping headlong, and with enthusiasm, into the pig shit of the lie, we’re just gettig covered in pig shit.

  5. It’s high time symbolic gestures are banned from government.

    You can do symbolic gestures as a private person. Government officials have no business ‘sending messages’. Do something real or don’t do anything.

  6. In the same breath they admit that a GFZ is useless and continue on that it is needed.

    The grinding of their mental gears from so much cognitive dissonance is screeching.

    Sorry, I don’t have “conversations” with crazy people who offer insane non-solutions.

    • Let’s remember to call it what it is — not a “gun free zone” but rather a “disarmed victim zone”.

  7. I completely agree with boycotting businesses who ban firearms in their establishments; but just as a side note (please correct me if I am wrong): for a CLP holder, I don’t believe there is any law in Washington State that makes it a criminal offense to ignore a “no guns allowed” sign on private property (except for those specific types of places specified in RCW 9.41.280 (schools) and 9.41.300 (bars, courthouses, mental hospitals,etc…). Only if they specifically ask you to leave do you have to leave to avoid trespassing. This is not the case in other states such as Oregon.

    Just out of curiosity, does any one know what precipitated the ban on carry at outdoor music festivals lasting 5 hours or more (RCW 70.108.150)?

    • That’s how it tends to be practiced in Oregon, too. Technically, if a place is posted “No weapons allowed” and you enter, that’d fall under the definition of “enter or remain unlawfully” unless the property is “open to the public” (also legally defined). As normally practiced, it’s as you describe: you’re not trespassing until you remain after being asked to leave.

      On principle, I’d not spend money at a place that’s posted against lawful carry, whether I happen to be carrying or not, but that’s just me.

  8. ” [W]e hope that standing together and giving businesses a tool to say no to guns will change the conversation around gun violence.”

    All that would do is increase the number of people who would say, like Suzanne Gratia-Hupp, “I wish I’d had my gun with me.”

    Are they sure they want THAT in their “conversation?”

Comments are closed.