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

[Paul Rumelhart]

I get on an airplane very infrequently, even less so now that the TSA is out of control.  I go to bed every night.  My friend's dad stopped someone from climbing through his bedroom window a number of years ago by the simple expedient of pointing a large revolver in his face.  This had a deterrent effect; the suspected burglar backed out the window quickly and ran off, probably to go get a change of underwear.  You live long enough, something strange will happen.  Better to be prepared.

Gun safety is an issue.  Many newer guns have extra safety features.  I hope they continue to innovate in this area.  Certainly there is much more that can be done to reduce firearm-related accidents.

Paul




________________________________
 From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .
 

Paul,

Again you are mistaken about the facts. Do some research. If you live in a high crime district, having a gun might provide more safety than potential for harm. If not, the potential for harm is greater. Those are the facts. No matter how much confidence you have in yourself, living in Moscow, ID your gun is much more likely to do you harm than good. I promise you that (unfortunately) we are much more likely to read about someone committing suicide with a firearm, or harming another, than protecting him- or herself in this particular town.

Think of this analogy. Would you ever think of bringing a parachute aboard an airplane? Well, there was a time when it was much more probable that you would die in a plane crash than via a home invasion. (I'm not sure of the statistics now; not many people die on commercial airlines.) If you were to bring a parachute aboard a plane, you would be perceived as suffering from wild paranoia. Of course there is a chance the plane will go down but (a) it is very unlikely and (b) very unlikely to help were a situation to arise (remember the point I made yesterday that in order for a gun to be useful it has to be loaded and available for use, yet that increases the likelihood of accident).

I'm sorry but you and others who are unyielding about gun control seem as paranoid as a guy with a parachute boarding an airplane. The analogy is very close. But the difference is that the proliferation of guns increases risks of gun violence for all of us, as the Sandy Hook episode shows. It isn't just a personal liberty debate; it is a public harm debate, as well. We have a history of sacrificing liberties in order to prevent harms. Again, I don't always agree with these choices and we need to be very cautious about how to proceed. But to dismiss gun control as an option based on some flawed view of liberty is unwise.

Joe


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

What was I thinking?  Home invasions never happen.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:44 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .
> 
>
>Paul Rumelhart tells us:
>
>"Yet I'd still prefer having one available if I ever needed one."
>
>Paranoia . . . Self-Destroya!
>
>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
>"Moscow Cares"
>http://www.MoscowCares.com
>  
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>On Dec 19, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Yet I'd still prefer having one available if I ever needed one.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121219/789351c9/attachment.html>