A cheerless greeting
Free speech is free for believers and non-believers alike.
Billboards bearing the message “Don’t believe in God? Join the club” appeared in the Roanoke Valley the week before Christmas — a Blue Ridge Coalition of Reason advertisement that some unknown party found not acceptable at all.
Before the week was out, someone used black spray paint to obliterate the word “Don’t.”
December 28, 2012 - 6:16 AM
Wow. Can’t believe this warranted an editorial. Everyone agrees vandalism is bad, no one questions the free speech right, this type of graffiti crap happens all the time. Did you see the signs in November during the election? C’mon.
Time to take the spray paints from everyone I guess.
Apparently at least a few “ungodly” folks do indeed “questions the free speech right”. This vandalism and denial of free speech does warrant an editorial IMO.
People don’t infringe on others’ constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech!
Spray Paint cans do!
Ban spray paint now!
No one is denying free speech. There was vandalism on an advertisement. Happens everyday.
Break it up, son.
Joke’s over.
Oh yeah, sure.
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2012/12/4-ffrf-signs-countering-christmas.html
In a news release yesterday, the Freedom from Religion Foundation reported that it has put up Winter Solstice banners or signs in 12 cities this year to counter religious displays on public property. Many of the banners use text that calls religion “myth & supestition.” However the FFRF signs have been stolen or vandalized in 4 locations– the Boston Commons; next door to a police station in Gladwin, Michigan; in Warren, Michigan; and in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania where the sign was vandalized in front of TV cameras.
@7- Again. Vandalism. Signs are being allowed to be displayed. Advertising is still being put up. No one is denying that right. People are vandalizing the property and should be punished justly for it.
@8 Uptheriver, agreed.
I’d like to point out how far we as a society have come. Only ~25% of atheist signs vandalized?! That’s flipping great! In the not too distance past, these signs would be refused or vandalized at a much higher rate.
The best thing about these signs in my opinion is that it protects not only the atheist rights to speak out but everyone’s! People will be able to say “You put up the atheist sign or made room for the atheist sign, you should take mine too (whatever the cause) to be fair.”
Long live Freedom of Speech!
In the case of this one sign in particular, the “vandalism” is very apparently for the purpose of fighting free speech. The only part “vandalized” was the first word, for a reason. I am sorry you cannot see that.
Uptheriver, is a cross burning, just vandalism too?
@11 It could be a cross that was on fire or it can be arson and you could certainly say vandalism depending on how it caught fire. It’s not a denial of free speech.
Speaking of burning as a form of vandalism, one more for you right here in Virginia.
http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2012/12/vandalism-of-secular-humanist-display-under-investigation.php
Vandals delivered a couple of pre-Christmas messages clearly lacking in tidings of comfort and joy to a sign promoting secular humanist beliefs on the Warren County courthouse lawn.
Authorities said Thursday the sign was spray painted overnight on Dec. 16 and then damaged in a fire in the early morning hours of Dec. 21.
more…
Speaking of what is and is not free speech, how about a sign on a lawn that reads:
Attention: my next door neighbor wants to ban all firearms, and is faithful to his cause by not having guns. My house, however, is armed. So, consider that if you are trying to decide which home to burgle.
Is that acceptable? Just curious.
Wouldn’t that be an invitation for someone to break in and steal the gun owner’s firearms?
If gun owners believe it is wrong for the newspaper to print who has guns, why is it right for them to say who does not? Sounds like a great neighbor to have.
15 – well, it might be; of course, he runs a risk of being shot. If that’s an acceptable risk to him, he might try it.
(Understand, I’m not a gun owner, and I wouldn’t be so crass as to put such a sign on my lawn even I knew it to be true. I’m just playing hypothetical here.)
15 – in all likelihood it wouldn’t be a deterrent to the one posting the sign, but might it encourage a burglar to enter the unarmed house, confident he WON’T be shot?
@14 I’ve seen that sign. I think it’s fine.
#15 – “Wouldn’t that be an invitation for someone to break in and steal the gun owner’s firearms?”
No more so than publishing the names and addresses of concealed carry holders.
Speaking of gun ownership, I belong to a small non-profit group that is thinking of having a gun buy-back like they recently had in California.
Any thoughts in general? Want to start a discussion?
20 – No more so than publishing the names and addresses of concealed carry holders.
Good God, man, what nameless, faceless organ of government power would so encourage theft?
18- Depends on what the burglar is after. Guns are a popular item with burglars, who often break in when no one is home anyway.
21 – well, what prices do you offer? Better than a pawn shop’s? What limitations would you place on what you buy back? I remember a buyback in Washington DC where they overpaid for the guns they bought back, allowing people to sell the gun, buy a new one, and have some cash left over. Some even turned in the guns they had just purchased and did it all over again. That was a rousing success.
22 – so a properly secured and hidden weapon (which they should be anyway) should prevent the intruder’s theft of the gun.
@23 89Hoo, I was thinking of full value in terms of a tax deduction. Because we’re a non-profit, we can offer a receipt for the value of the item which could then be itemized.
I’ve not yet cleared this with the IRS but am looking into it.
25 – but how do you determine fair market value?
25 – and Scott, who are you targeting? Who do you think would turn in their weapons for a tax deduction?
22 – Christina, would it serve as a deterrent for someone bent on a crime other than theft? Substitute “invade and assault” for “burgle”?
@26, 27 89Hoo, fair market value based on purchase price of a new weapon? Internet search or catalog I suppose.
Target audience (excuse the pun) is anyone that wants to get rid of their guns. I realize most people would want hard cash but we’ll do what we can. Consider…Say a pistol can be bought new for ~$350. We could offer them $50 cash OR if we write them a receipt for a $350 donation, at a 30% tax bracket, it’s worth $100 in decreased taxes. Of course, if you don’t itemize or are in a lower tax bracket it doesn’t have as much value. Still, with the recent events at Sandy Hook, there may be some, widows for example, who just want to get rid of them. We’ll give them that chance.
#21 – I love gun buy back programs, Scott!
I once turned in an old, rusted out, broken Sears .22 rifle that was basically nothing but a club, and got a hundred bucks for it!
Sweet!
Could be. The hypothetical was yours. I’m just saying that there is a market for stolen guns, so a sign in your yard notifying the world that you have a bunch of them is a bad idea.
30 – this is not to discourage you, Scott, but just to give you something to think about. You might attract a few people who turn in their guns out of misplaced guilt, but consider the sorts of people who have guns (assuming we work around the issue of criminal liability, anonymity, etc.):
– criminals have guns; they would likely not turn theirs in because it is their livelihood; they likely don’t pay taxes; they likely don’t give to charities; and they likely can get more on the street than the fraction you are offering (assuming they sell their gun instead of robbing someone when they need cash);
– honest people who have guns are either pro-gun to begin with, and not likely to turn them in, or know they can get more money at a pawn shop or guns store or gun show. Of course, it’s not the honest folks we worry about.
You pretty much are limited to the guilty liberal crowd, and since most of them don’t own guns anyway, it likely won’t be of much use. Which means you can probably petition a gun control congressman, have a separate itemized tax deduction added, and have Uncle spend more on collection stations and accountants than the value of the guns returned. A purely symbolic gesture, in other words.
16 – “If gun owners believe it is wrong for the newspaper to print who has guns, why is it right for them to say who does not? Sounds like a great neighbor to have.”
Thankfully, no newspapers would do that.
#32 – ” I’m just saying that there is a market for stolen guns…”
Which will no doubt go away if a gun ban comes into affect, right?
I don’t believe there is a black market for guns. That would be illegal.
@33 89Hoo, no discouragement taken. I have no illusions about the overall utility of what I’m proposing.
The only way to make a significant dent in gun crimes is to outlaw guns and have the authorities do a house to house. I will NOT be making a significant dent in gun crimes. I realize that.
But, I figure some guns off the street are better than doing nothing.
I’d like to direct your attention to this L.A. Times article about their recent buy-back. Note of the 2,037 weapons turned in, 166 were turned in for nothing (they were offering gift cards for groceries). They got 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns, 75 assault weapons and a ROCKET LAUNCHER!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/la-gun-buy-back-nets-2037-guns-including-75-assault-weapons-and-a-launcher.html
…He said nearly three-quarters of those turning in the weapons said in an informal survey that they felt safer with the weapons off the street.
“Perhaps the most honest testament to the success of yesterday’s program can be seen in the 166 weapons that were surrendered for nothing,” Villaraigosa said…..
37 – and the subsequent decline in crime in LA is a testimony to its effectiveness.
37 – should also add that it was awfully nice of the city of Los Angeles to provide a means for murderers and other criminals to dispose of their weapons anonymously. Wonder how many crimes will remain unsolved? Accountability not important, symbolism over substance.
#37 – “The only way to make a significant dent in gun crimes is to outlaw guns and have the authorities do a house to house.”
Constitution be damned, right, Scott?
#37 – Yep…taking away the guns will surely make us safe.
Oh, wait…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
@39 89Hoo, You wonder how many crimes will remain unsolved while I wonder how many crimes will be averted.
Back to the original topic. Another 1 or 2 atheist billboard defaced.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/318422
Another Roanoke area billboard placed by a regional atheist group has been vandalized to alter the message.
The Blue Ridge Coalition of Reason, a local chapter of the national United Coalition of Reason, placed four billboards in the Roanoke area in an attempt to attract more members. The billboards read, “Don’t believe in God? Join the club.”…..
42 Well, since the gun buyback netted no criminals (helped hide them, in fact, aided and abettedtheir capture) it didn’t avert a single crime. Unless you adhere to the fantasy that the criminal will purchase his next weapon legally, as criminals tend to do.
@41, 42 Michael, I know we have our differences but I’m not rising to the bait.
I’m not advocating taking away guns or anything like that. That’s why I’m proposing a voluntary (hell I can’t even offer you money for them) “buy-back”.
I have no illusions about crime rates either. All I’m saying is if you want to reduced GUN crime rates, you get rid of the guns. By the same token, if you want to get rid of car accidents, you get rid of the cars. Not saying it’s a good or bad idea. Just saying that’s how you do it.
I looked at your link and it’s easy to figure out they’re doing their numbers differently from us. Also, they don’t break theirs out into gun deaths. If you’re still reading, here are a couple links worth exploring.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
Murders by youth:
UK – 139 // US – 8,226
Murders with firearms:
UK – 14 // US – 9,369
I don’t really trust these figures and there is no explanation about time frames or sources. Just so you know.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
…With less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison…
In 2007, number of UK homicides by firearms, 41. Us, 9,146.
These numbers didn’t jive with the following link until I realized the NY Times graphic includes suicides.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html
So, yeah, my original conclusion: If you want to reduce death by gun, you get rid of the guns.
@44 89Hoo, your logic is flawed. The Lanza kid, who obviously ended up being a murderer, acquired a legally purchased gun. Granted he did it by shooting his mother in the face…
By taking guns off the street through a buy-back program, you reduce would-be criminal’s access to these weapons. I realize with the greater than 200 million guns in the US it’s a negligible amount but the logic holds. These weapons would be unavailable to any criminals that might have otherwise acquired them in the future.
“I wonder how many crimes will be averted.”
Are you saying your okay with letting a murderer get away with it on the off chance that he didn’t already obtain another firearm BEFORE he turned the weapon used in prior shootings? You guys truly do think the gun and not the criminal is to blame for crime don’t you?
44 – should read that the buyback aided and abetted the criminals’ escape…
46 – yes, Lanza got the gun by stealing it and killing his mother. The gun buyback would likely not have changed that because it is unlikely his mother would have turned in her weapon (as I said above, pro 2nd Amendment types are not likely to turn in their guns in a buyback scheme), and even if she had, he would have stolen it from someone else (and possibly killed someone else in the process). Would not have stopped him.
@47 Chuck, huh? Sorry man, you’re confusing me. I’m saying a gun that is destroyed, can’t be used in the future for anything including a crime.
And Scott, I’m saying that someone willing to commit murder or who lives the life of a career criminal would be more than happy to turn in a murder weapon or otherwise “hot” weapon with the assurance of anonymity, but that doesn’t mean he will commit no further crimes. The guns don’t commit crime by themselves. Do you really think the criminals won’t be able to get more guns?
You’re position is a lot like saying the habitual drunk driver won’t drive drunk anymore because he wrecked his car. He may not drive THAT car drunk anymore . . . you see where I’m going here?
“…since most of them don’t own guns anyway…”
You’d be surprised.
53 – you may be right, I might be surprised. Do you think they’d likely turn them in at a gun buyback program such as Scott is proposing?
@54 89Hoo, I can’t answer for most of us but, as much as it will pain me, if we do this, my Beretta will be the first to go. Lead by example and all that.
@51, 52 Chuck, thanks for clarifying.
In the short term you are correct. A career criminal would be able to get a gun in a country where there are 200 million plus of them in civilian hands.
I’m saying (to the best of my abilities, sorry if I confuse anyone) that the removal of a small number of guns through a buy-back has the potential to allow a person who isn’t a career-criminal a cooling off period.
I don’t know what really happened at Newtown, CT with Adam Lanza. Perhaps, just perhaps, he flipped out that day, took those weapons, killed his mother and then went on to the elementary school. I’m saying, perhaps if his mother had given up her weapons in a buy-back prior to the massacre, they would have gotten into a fist fight and he’d have ended up in jail instead of going on to Sandy Hook.
Of course, if the second scenario had happened, we’d never know if the gun buy back worked because the massacre wouldn’t have happened.
In the long term, if we want to stop gun crime by career criminals, the way to do that is removal of the vast majority or all guns from civilian hands. I’m not advocating for it and I think that’s even less likely than my communist worker’s paradise. But, if you want to stop gun crime, that’s the way to do it.
I was going to attempt to make a drunk driver analogy to the gun scenario but failed. I hope what I’m saying about the guns is clear enough.
More importantly, I hope you will agree with me.
Gee, how did this become yet another gun thread?
55 – nothing is stopping you from walking to the police station and surrendering your weapon today, Scott.
@58 89Hoo, true. If I can use it as an example though, I think it will do more good.
But like I said, I hate the idea of giving it up. My dad gave it to me and it could be sold for a decent amount of money. The thought of just destroying it hurts.
I’d rather go to my grave never needing my gun than to go to my grave wishing I’d had one. Guns will NEVER be eliminated, no matter what laws are passed. Heroin and cocaine were made illegal, how’s that worked out for society so far.
@60 JimW, fair enough. But what will happen to those guns after you’re in your grave?
Have you made provisions to have them destroyed? How many guns do you need while you’re alive?
61 – you seem to be saying, Scott, that you can keep the gun your father gave you, but others should destroy theirs rather than pass them to their sons. Double standard? All animals are equal but some are more equal than others?
Besides, wouldn’t it send a stronger message to the guilty white liberal crowd if you were to surrender your weapon voluntarily, irrespective of its value? Isn’t that what you would have THEM do through your program?
@62 89Hoo, I don’t mind being a little hypocritical which is your point really. But it’s not really.
I’m saying getting rid of guns is a good idea. I’m NOT demanding anyone give up their guns (including mine). I probably will destroy my Beretta irrespective of its value despite it being left to me and imagining I’d maybe someday give it to my son.
After examining the gun control issue to the best of my ability I’ve come to the following conclusions.
1) Americans own a LOT of guns.
2) A lot of guns leads to a lot of homicides, suicides, and accidents with guns.
3) Guns with high capacity magazines and fast reload times are capable of killing more people in a short amount of time than something like a six-shooter or double barrel shotgun.
4) Guns, even those owned by law abiding, well intentioned citizens, can end up in the hands of the bad guys. They can be stolen or passed on when the owner dies.
5) If you want to decrease gun homicides, suicides, and accidents, the best way of doing that is to get rid of the guns.
6) Offering a “buy-back” is one way of getting rid of guns while avoiding the whole legal/Constitutional arguments. It’s voluntary.
7) Because it’s voluntary, I may or may not give up mine. There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to give up their guns. They may conclude they want to keep them. I may conclude I want to keep mine.
8) If I’m able to organize a gun “buy-back”, my Beretta will be the first to go.