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

Thu Dec 20 11:49:57 PST 2012

I don't think Paul or anyone else is paranoid for wanting to own a gun for defense. I can think of an event just a few years ago in Moscow, close to my home, when I'll bet folks in the neighorhood who owned guns were glad to have them. Those are exceptional events, I think, but it happened here. And I believe there has been at least one home invasion in Pullman in recent years. 

At the same time I had a job that gave me a pretty good look at the crime in Moscow, and I do think it's a pretty safe place.

If one is going to have firearms in the home, then of course they should take steps to make sure they're stored where kids (or thieves) can't get to them. 

Having said all that, I think Paul that you are also overreacting. It is time we discuss what to do about the price our society is paying with our current approach to gun ownership. We shouldn't wait. If we talk rationally we can separate bad policies from good policies. 

Sunil

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:24:42 -0800
From: godshatter at yahoo.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis.  Is it your opinion that nobody in Moscow should need to defend themselves in their own home at any time?  Do you recommend keeping your doors and windows unlocked at night?

Crime is real.  Even in innocent little Moscow.  I don't find it paranoid to want to be able to defend myself if the need should arise.  Feel free to think of my calm, rational decision to be prepared for an unlikely but plausible scenario as a  mental health problem, though, if it makes you feel superior.

I see this current round of trying to ban the low hanging fruit to be an overreaction.  It's an excuse that people who don't think the Second Amendment is worth anything can use to do what they have always wanted to do anyway.  While I also realize that no one is
 trying to ban weapons used for personal defense inside their homes, provided they are not assault weapons or have too many rounds in the clip, I have no doubt that there are people out there that would if they thought they had a chance in hell of getting away with it.

Banning assault weapons will have as little effect on the overall situation as taking off our shoes in airports has had fighting terrorism.

Paul

        From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
 To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Ron
 Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
 Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 9:30 AM
 Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .

You sound paranoid, Paul. There is little evidence that a gun is needed for protection in this town. Could happen. Could happen that a brick falls out of a window and strikes you on the head, too. But if you walked around town with a helmet, you would LOOK paranoid. You would look paranoid precisely because you are preparing for something that has a VERY low probability of occurring.

What exactly am I missing in this analogy? And like Carl said, neither I nor anyone else is going to take away your handgun. But I'll try my best not to let paranoia dictate public policy.

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

That's your recommended defense against someone who, for whatever reason, has broken into my house with me inside of it?  Expect the best of them?  Should I trust in fate and never wear seat belts?

Oh, and pardon me for relating a story relevant to the topic at hand.

Paul

   From: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
 To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; philosopher.joe at gmail.com 

Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
 Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:32 AM

 Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .

As long as we're substituting anecdotes for data, I can say that I do get on airplanes frequently. In 71 years of life, my home has never been burglarized or invaded. I have never been mugged or even threatened on the street. I have traveled to fifty states, seven continents and thirty countries and found only friendly and cooperative people. I observe common-sense precautions to avoid situations where I could be put in danger, like patronizing sleazy bars while flashing a big roll of bills (I know, no fun).

The only time I found it necessary to be armed was during a year in Vietnam and even there, the great majority of the people I met were non-belligerent. I sold my personal guns when I returned, and don't miss them. Life is a happier place if you expect the best
 of people and don't look for dangers lurking around every
 corner.            

                                From:

                            Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>;                            

                                To:

                            Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>;                                                     

                                Cc:

                            vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>;                                                                             

                                Subject:

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

                                Sent:

                            Wed, Dec 19, 2012 10:02:26 PM                            

                                        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.

=======================================================
 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/20121220/61b9a1d1/attachment-0001.html>