[Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 19 08:37:33 PST 2012


Yet I'd still prefer having one available if I ever needed one.  There are ways around this seemingly insurmountable problem, I'm sure.

Paul




________________________________
 From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> 
Cc: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .
 

Paul,

You just offered an argument for why guns offer false protection. Either they are handy yet there are safety issues, or they are safe, locked away, and useless. Joe

On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:58 PM, "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:


Paul, it’s second guessing, but I, too, have wondered why she didn’t keep 
them in a  gun safe.  Surely not all  were bought for self 
protection.  She had talked with others about enjoying the shooting 
range.  This isn’t meant to be a rationale for anything, just a sidebar. 
> 
>Sue H.  
>From: Paul Rumelhart 
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:02 PM
>To: Donovan Arnold ; Saundra 
Lund 
>Cc: 'vision 2020' 
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . 
.
>  I'd 
also like to point out that all the mental health evaluations in the world 
needed to purchase a gun wouldn't have helped in this case because they weren't 
his guns to begin with.
>
>Once the hysteria dies down, thinking up ways 
that we can help ensure that gun owners are more responsible with their guns at 
home when they are not being used would be a good idea.  If this guy's 
mother had kept her guns in a gun safe, he would have had a harder time getting 
to them.  They would have been safe from any children that might have been 
in the house as well, and probably would have made them less accident-prone as 
well.  The downside is that they are not immediately available if you hear 
a prowler in the house.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
> 
>
>________________________________
> From: Donovan Arnold 
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>To: Paul Rumelhart 
<godshatter at yahoo.com>; Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> 
>Cc: 'vision 2020' 
<vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:58 
AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 
Isn't it about time . . .
>
> 
>I don't know about you, but I 
still see lots of dangerous idiots behind the wheel of cars regardless of all 
the regulations. 
> 
> 
>Unfortunately, 
regardless of the timing or breathe of time allowed to resolve an issue, the 
nation usually chooses political and financial solutions for the wealthy, not realistic ones that resolve the real 
problems for the average person. 
> 
>My 
bet will be the average person will have to pay an extra $100 a year to go to 
the mental health professionals that are lobbying 
Congress to do bullshit mental health evaluations on all persons wanting to 
purchase certain particular automatic rifles that will not even be in production 
in a year.  
> 
>Its 
kind of like the physicals truck drivers are required to take before pulling an 80,000 load down the 
highway. You can tell just by looking at a 72 year old, chain smoking, 350lbs 
driver he could drop dead any minute (and they do, even while driving), but they 
get their DOT health clearance cards anyways, by simply paying the $100. 
> 
>Donovan J. Arnold
> 
>From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>To: Saundra Lund 
<v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> 
>Cc: 'vision 2020' 
<vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:41 
PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 
Isn't it about time . . .
>
> 
>On 12/17/2012 08:14 PM, Saundra Lund 
wrote:
>
> 
>>Paul wrote:
>>“Anything we try  to do in the meantime will almost certainly be an overreaction.”
>> 
>>Hogwash.  
>> 
>>Given the horrendous regularity of gun  violence in this nation, how convenient for people to propose  that after violence isn’t the time to look at much needed and long  overdue reforms.  That position guarantees reform will never happen because there will never be enough time between incidents.   And, frankly, I don’t know how those who’ve continued to advocate the “hands off”  approach to meaningful reform dare to look in their damn mirrors  anymore.
>You are generally a calm, rational 
poster.  You mention a solution below (treating guns with the same types of 
laws we treat buying, selling, and operating cars) that has promise and should 
be discussed.  Watch over the next few days, on this list and on the 
national stage,  what solutions will be proposed.  I could be wrong, 
but I expect calm, rational solutions to be in the minority.
>
>
> 
>>Fortunately, many people are far more  capable of reasoned thinking in crisis than you want to give us credit  for.  Besides, Paul, quite a few people, including a lot of really smart  ones, have been discussing reasonable reform long before the SHES  tragedy.  It’s not like the lunacy of gun violence in America is  new.
>> 
>>Long before the SHES tragedy, I was  beyond heartbroken by the nearly daily news coverage of this child or that  being accidentally shot – and often killed -- by their parents’ weapons.   And, I was beyond weary of this person or that being killed by a stolen gun or  a gun purchased through the gun show loophole that never should have  been sold to an individual.  It’s crystal clear to me that far too many  “gun enthusiasts” take advantage of their right to have whatever weapons their  hearts’ desire without taking the responsibility that goes along with  having those weapons, and anyone who argues that isn’t the case is a  damn fool or a damn liar.  When products have hurt or killed far, far  fewer than those who are victims or survivors of gun violence, we demand reform.  What on earth is wrong with people who choose to  accept the shameless fear-mongering of the despicable NRA over good-ol’  American common sense?!?
>There is 
plenty of room for compromise here, as long as both sides of the conversation 
can actually happen.  In this media circus atmosphere, who dares stand up 
for the original intent of the Second Amendment, when "think of the children!" 
is all that we will hear?  I'm damn tired of people trying to manipulate me 
through fear.  In 2009 there were 11,493 firearm related homicides in the 
U.S.  In 2009 there were also 125,464 deaths due to acute myocardial 
infarction.  Are people going to get up in arms about the bad health of the 
average American the next time a celebrity dies of a heart attack with the same fervour that is 
happening right now over this massacre?  I doubt it, because this is a 
spectacle and it sells.  Thus, my earlier contention that it might be a 
good idea to wait until Lindsay Lohan goes to rehab again and the media spotlight 
turns on her before we can make any serious progress that has a hope of standing 
up in court.
>
>
> 
>>Paul also wrote:
>>“For  instance, if I said "the second amendment is about more than protecting  kindergartners from being shot", I would currently be lambasted as an uncaring  person who is dancing on the graves of 6 year-olds or something.”
>> 
>>Nonsense, and I’m getting pretty tired  of your very frequent “everybody always picks on me” belly-aching.  Is  this paranoia a part of your daily life, or do you just show it  here?
>It's not a cry for help, it's merely a 
prediction.  When previous attempts at calm, rational discourse have been 
twisted so horribly, so many times, you start to see a pattern emerge.  One 
that even a myopic social liberal, fiscal conservative, and civil libertarian 
will notice after a while.
>
>Paul
>
>
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>Saundra
>> 
>> 
>>From:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
>>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012  4:39 PM
>>To: Sue Hovey; Sunil Ramalingam; vision 2020
>>Subject: Re:  [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .
>> 
>>A few days after the accident when they are discussing  the funerals on TV of the kids and are interviewing bereaved parents and  getting the "man on the street's" view of things is a horrible time to try to  sit down and have a rational conversation about what we can and cannot do to  help strengthen our gun laws or figure out a better way to deal with mental  health problems.  It's a great time to act if you are a group that has a  preset agenda and just happens to have a bill all written up that you have  been dying to pass, but that won't help anyone but the people with the  agendas.  See our reaction as a country to 9/11 as a good lesson on this  topic.
>>
>>I'm hoping lawmakers will wait until the passion of the moment 
  has died down and we have some distance before we try to rework the gun 
  laws.  Fat chance, I know.
>>
>>For instance, if I said "the second 
  amendment is about more than protecting kindergartners from being shot", I 
  would currently be lambasted as an uncaring person who is dancing on the 
  graves of 6 year-olds or something.  *Maybe* in a few weeks  we'll be able to really discuss it.  Anything we try to do in the  meantime will almost certainly be an overreaction.
>>
>>Paul
>> 
>> 
>>From:Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>
>>To: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>>Cc: Paul Rumelhart  <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
>>Sent: Monday, December  17, 2012 3:07 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . .  .
>>
>>
>>
>>“Knee-jerk reaction or fear-driven acts.”  Those are  interesting but patronizing ways to characterize the responses to these  killings, and of the same mindset, I think, as “guns don’t kill  people.”   We need to be considering all our options and we should  have been doing that for a very long time.   Those of us who live  here, own guns, and use them for hunting and self-protection need to be  willing to look at the cultural issues that are bigger than our own  mindsets.  Might it not be that we need to consider restating the Second  Amendment in such a way as to prohibit private ownership of certain types of  armament?  We already do some of that within the scope of the amendment;  why not look further?  Why not consider the way we publicize the  events...the murderer, who may have never had much in the way of self  gratification, can be sure if his, yes his, crime is of a certain magnitude,  he will be remembered for the way it
 was publicized with his face on every  newscast and every front page? A First Amendment question....dare we consider  it?    There are a lot of issues here, none of them  trivial.  
>> 
>>Sue H.
>> 
>>From:Sunil Ramalingam
>>Sent:Monday, December 17, 2012 2:06  PM
>>To:vision  2020
>>Subject:Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time .  . .
>> 
>>But the cartoon doesn't advocate banning all guns. It  shows someone leaving the NRA, which opposes the regulation you find  reasonable.
>>
>>The NRA's response to regulation is fear-driven.  It's one of their marketing techniques, or to use another of your terms below,  a knee-jerk reaction.
>>
>>Sunil
>>Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012  14:01:04 -0800
>>From: godshatter at yahoo.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . 
  .
>>To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>There's a difference between being prepared and simply  reacting to something.  I take a blanket and a flashlight with me on  winter trips in the car, I carry jumper cables in the trunk, I have smoke  alarms and a fire extinguisher in my house, I bring a space blanket, some  matches, and a folding knife with me when I go hiking, and I keep a gun at  home in case I need to protect myself.
>>
>>Banning all guns because someone 
  used one in a horrifying way appears to me to be more of a fear-driven 
  act.  There is definitely room for improvement in who we sell guns to and 
  how well we learn how to use them but that's a discussion that should happen 
  after the knee-jerk reactions have passed.
>>
>>Paul
>> 
>> 
>>From:Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>>To: vision 2020  <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>>Sent: Monday, December  17, 2012 1:33 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . .  .
>> 
>>Paul,
>>
>>Doesn't 
  that apply to both sides of the argument?
>>
>>Sunil
>>Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012  13:27:10 -0800
>>From: godshatter at yahoo.com
>>To: thansen at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . 
  .
>>If you want your life to be ruled by fear-driven reflex,  sure.
>>
>>Paul
>> 
>> 
>>From:Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>>To: Moscow Vision 2020  <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>>Sent: Monday, December  17, 2012 12:44 PM
>>Subject: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . .  .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Seeya round town,  Moscow, because . . .
>>
>>"Moscow Cares"
>>http://www.moscowcares.com/
>>  
>>Tom Hansen
>>Moscow, 
  Idaho
>>
>>=======================================================
>>List 
  services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of 
  the Palouse since  1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net/
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>
>>======================================================= 
  List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities 
  of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net/mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=======================================================
>>
>>=======================================================
>>List 
  services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of 
  the Palouse since  1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net/
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>=======================================================
>>List 
  services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of 
  the Palouse since  1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>> 
>
>=======================================================
>List 
services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of 
the Palouse since 
1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net/
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> =======================================================
>List services made 
available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse 
since 
1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net
>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121219/989b3a01/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list