Some people are just asking to be removed from the gene pool. See below for more details.

> Prove Commitment to Peace: Post ‘No Guns Here’ on Lawn
> Sunday, October 14, 2001, Salt Lake Tribune
>
> BY GILES LARSEN
>
>
> During the ongoing gun rights/gun control debate we have heard a
> challenge from pro-gun advocates to those who decry the militarization of
> domestic life. The dare is for anyone to post a sign outside of their
> residence advertising the absence of firearms on their property. We, the
> members of the Wasatch Peace Team (WPT), think that this is a great idea.
We
> firmly believe that we can not afford to rely on our rights alone to
reduce
> the violence in our world; our hearts must join us in the task as well. We
> will hence post a sign on our residence similar in appearance to the house
> alarm signs which proliferate our neighborhoods. The difference is, our
> signs will say that our home is “protected by compassionate nonviolence.”
>
> We take this action in full awareness of the implications these signs
> will have on the world and ourselves. Far from naive passivity, this
action
> is a form of proactive nonviolence which is taken in every moment of our
> daily lives. Proactive nonviolence does not wait for a threatening
situation
> to respond to, but rather initiates creative means of preventing violence
> from happening in the first place. These principles, with the exception of
> the first, are subjective so that their application will not hinder our
> better judgment. In other words, we are not inviting “bad people” to take
> advantage of us.
>
> On the contrary, we are reaching out with compassion to restore the bonds
of
> our entire community. Here is the foundation of our commitment:
> Our nation cannot claim to be whole as long as its citizens share the
> same definition of peace and safety as that of its military: perpetual
> pre-hostility. Under this erroneous notion, peace is relegated to an
> intermission between ongoing violent conflict and tension.
> This ideology, reminiscent of the Cold War, is precisely the view of
> those who feel that only an arms race between law-abiding citizens and
> law-breaking criminals is the solution to violent crime.
>
> Reflecting our collective withdrawal from our surroundings and the
> subsequent militarization of our communities, each residence has become
its
> own kingdom, with an invasion of foreigners subject to harsh retaliation.
> However, much like our real-life military, we are first and foremost the
> victim of our own self-induced fear, which conjures up all sorts of
> terrifying threats to our security. This fear is often directed by
> scapegoating a politically vulnerable target without truly understanding
the
> intricacies of the situation.
> When guns are the target, pro-gun advocates are quick to recognize the
> scapegoating process in motion (Guns don’t kill people, people kill
people).
> Nevertheless, they are the first to fall into the same trap by
scapegoating
> criminals, drug users and the mentally ill. Many are comfortable
condemning
> the individuals in these groups as the root of the problem due to their
lack
> of personal responsibility.
> Responsibility is indeed paramount, but to pinpoint an individual or
> group as the root of the problem is to ignore the fact that we exist in a
> dynamic system of relationships in our local, national and global
> communities. We are not simply autonomous individuals, but also spokes in
an
> interdependent society. Personal responsibility must be greased with
social
> responsibility for the wheel to spin unhindered. The message which an
> uninvited guest delivers when they break into our home is that our social
> responsibilities need tending to. Unfortunately, at this point the crisis
> has already arrived. If we silence forever that intruder with a bullet
> because we were “left with no choice,” the facade of security bestowed by
> the firearm reveals a grave powerlessness: victimized once by the
intruder,
> and again by being backed into the position of taking the life of another.
> The cycle of bloodshed will continue until we grasp this message deep
> within our hearts. Often content to place the blame of society’s moral
decay
> on the classic scapegoat, that which we call “evil” (be it selfishness,
> anger, hatred, etc.), we cease to recognize a far more debilitating moral
> disease: a profound indifference to the connections which thread us to the
> world one step beyond our lives. Indifference, much like the AIDS virus,
> does no direct harm to its host, instead it weakens our moral immune
system
> to the point that we silently betray humanity. While we generally condemn
> overt acts of physical and mental violence, indifference enables a
violence
> which is not always direct nor immediate. Abuses of inmates in prison,
> exploitation of workers, and holocausts are allowed to occur when people
> turn the other way.
> Furthermore, modern weaponry lends indifference with no better an
outlet
> with the excessive ease with which one can thoughtlessly pull a trigger.
It
> takes an entirely more bloodthirsty individual to settle a dispute by
> smashing in someone’s jaw, face down in a gutter, than someone who
> participates in a cowardly drive-by shooting. We should not kid ourselves:
> Technology certainly does kill, because the possibility of committing
> horrible violence is opened up to people who aren’t necessarily themselves
> violent.
> Pro-gun advocates extol the virtue of armed individuals who abide by
our
> laws of personal responsibility as the ultimate good guys. However,
> regardless of how reasonable or even heroic this standard may appear in
> light of a kill-or-be-killed situation, legal murder will not bring an end
> to the commonly shared disease of social irresponsibility that likely gave
> rise to the conflict in the first place. It only executes the messenger,
and
> provides an indeterminate intermission of peace within the context of
> perpetual pre-hostility.
> Without creative proactive efforts, guns won’t liberate us, they will
> only condemn us to a false sense of security, and a fickle heart which
> demonizes our brothers and sisters. Our legally granted rights set the
> foundation, not the ceiling, of our moral potential. Laws cannot mandate
the
> principles we have herein committed to; it requires a heart which
genuinely
> seeks a peaceful, healthy community. All we have to ask ourselves is, if
we
> could live in a society rooted in the principles below, wouldn’t we want
to?
> Protected by compassionate nonviolence, No guns here, All are welcome, We
> will share what we can, Enough is enough.
> What’s stopping us? Only through unity, with a common sense of our
> shared responsibilities, may we be rid of our shared disease.
> _________
>
> Giles Larsen lives in Salt Lake City.
>