[Vision2020] Huh?

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sat Dec 22 11:11:19 PST 2012


Gary,

I'm happy to discuss this issue with you but that would mean we would have
to discuss it. People keep mentioning specific criticisms about the NRA
plan, referring you and others to articles and television interviews where
the plan is discussed and dismissed, yet I don't see any real discussion of
the plan from its supporters. I have not seen many responses to the
criticisms other than "It might work." Like that was a reason for seriously
the plan.

Let me be more specific. Here are two recent criticisms that have not yet
been responded to. They are recent, so maybe that is the reason: one by Dan
and one by Sunil. Sunil writes:

With regard to the NRA response: As my memory serves me, I think we've had
shootouts at the following locations in the last 12-18 months:
-an elementary school;
-a shopping mall;
-a cinema;
-a Sikh temple;
-a political rally (that was >18 months ago, I think).
Should we have armed guards to protect us from each other at all of those
locations?

This broadens the economic argument that I was giving. The plan is
economically unfeasible. It isn't JUST that it is irresponsible -- a huge
federal program in a time of economic crisis -- it is unfeasible.

Second, Dan notes that there are questions about the need for the plan. He
writes: "there was significant security present when Gabrielle Giffords was
shot." Why think the security will help? You are ready to launch a huge
governmental program and it isn't even clear that it will do any good.
Saundra noted that it might draw shooters since most of them are suicidal
as well as homicidal.

So how do you or any others respond to these criticisms of the NRA plan?
Let's discuss it. I want to get this over with because this is a bad plan
and we are wasting a lot of time talking about it. Let's see why it is a
bad plan and move on to a better plan.

Joe

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>wrote:

> **
> I thought the point here was to discuss options. Do you imagine that being
> extra unpleasant lends an extra level of credence to your point of view?
>
> g
>
>  *From:* Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 8:18 PM
> *To:* 'Gary Crabtree' <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com> ; 'viz'<vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh?
>
>  It worked soo well at Columbine, didn’t it?****
>
> ** **
>
> Confrontation by the armed officer  on campus & the exchange of fire drove
> one of the shooters *back into the school* to continue the slaughter.
> There’s a stellar success!****
>
> ** **
>
> Oops – but don’t confuse you with reality & facts, right?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Saundra****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Gary Crabtree
> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 1:40 PM
> *To:* Joe Campbell
> *Cc:* viz
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh?****
>
> ** **
>
> Training to become a cop in Idaho is 10 weeks making time not much of an
> issue. There are quite a few things covered in POST that a school guard
> would not need training in (pursuit driving, crime scene investigation,
> etc. ) further reducing the time needed to get qualified people in place.
> Utilizing vets who were MP's or members of security detachments along with
> retired police officers would be prime candidates for positions such as
> this.****
>
>  ****
>
> All entry doors in a facility could be easily modified to emergency exit
> only except for one. This would make it so all visitors would be funneled
> through one door and past one armed guard.****
>
>  ****
>
> I really don't see what make this idea so unworkable other then the fact
> that it doesn't jibe very well with the anti-gun agenda.****
>
>  ****
>
> g****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Scott,
>
> There was an Assistant Director of the FBI on CNN today explaining why
> this cannot be implemented. Think of the training required before you
> release folks with guns onto school campuses. Then think of the number of
> schools, the number of doors to the school that would need to be guarded,
> the costs of training and hiring an education militia, and the number of
> qualified people available for those positions. This is a bad idea that
> does not stand a chance of getting passed. Forget about it and move on to
> some actual solution.
>
> Best, Joe****
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Armed security is something that could be implemented, regulated, and
> enforced much more easily than gun control, gun bans, etc.  Armed security
> guards could be subjected to more rigorous background and mental heath
> checks plus mandatory training and licensing without having that pesky 2nd
> Amendment coming into the mix.  Somewhat similar to how we supposedly have
> air marshalls on some flights.  This might be one of the very few things
> that the Republicans would actually be OK to put on the fragile shoulders
> of tax paying individuals and businesses.****
>  ------------------------------
>
> From: thansen at moscow.com
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:36:59 -0800
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Huh?****
>
> ** **
>
> "Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over
> legislation, regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return to
> school after the holiday break, we need to have every single school in
> America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by
> that I mean armed security."****
>
> ** **
>
> - Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle
> Association (December 21, 2012)****
>
>  ****
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cphq5lp****
>
> ** **
>
> ------------------------------------****
>
> ** **
>
> 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 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/20121222/d8e0eca1/attachment.html>


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list