[Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
Art Deco
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 13:07:06 PST 2013
Restrict also the number of ten shot magazines that can be possessed toone.
w.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
> Right off the top of my head I can think of . . .
>
> - Adam Lanza and the 26 reasons he provided at Sandy Hook Elementary
> School in Newtown, CT.
>
> - James Holmes and the 12 reasons he provided at a theater in Aurora, CO
>
> - Jared Lee Loughner and the six reasons he provided at a shopping mall in
> Phoenix, AZ
>
> And so on and so on and so on and . . .
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom "Proud to be a Filthy Liberal Scum" Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why do you feel that we have to somehow justify possession of
> high-capacity magazines? Shouldn't you have to justify wanting to deprive
> those who want to use them of those magazines?
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>; "lfalen at turbonet.com" <
> lfalen at turbonet.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2013 11:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
> One instance does NOT justify possession of high-capacity magazines, Mr.
> Rumelhart.
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>
> Tom "Proud to be a Filthy Liberal Scum" Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm curious why. Harris expended 96 rounds in ten round magazines at
> Columbine, so the lack of high-capacity magazines didn't seem to affect him
> at all. Holmes had a 100 round drum magazine which jammed on him. It
> doesn't appear to help one way or the other with respect to spree
> shootings, and might even make them worse (though I sincerely doubt that).
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>; "lfalen at turbonet.com" <
> lfalen at turbonet.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2013 11:25 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
> Although I am leaning strongly in favor of banning semi-automatic assault
> rifles, I feel that such a bill would face sufficient legislative
> opposition.
>
> HOWEVER . . .
>
> I STRONGLY (and I cannot emphasize my feelings enough) support immediate
> banning of high-capacity (more than ten rounds) magazines.
>
> The state of New York has already enacted such a law. But, Governor Cuomo
> is not as generous as I am. The state of New York has banned ammunition
> magazines with capacity in excess of SEVEN rounds.
>
> Heck, seven-round magazines don't even exist. If somebody wanted a
> seven-round magazine, (s)he would have to special order/manufacture it.
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>
> Tom "Proud to be a Filthy Liberal Scum" Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The same thing applies to gun owners as a group.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>
> *To:* lfalen at turbonet.com
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2013 11:07 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I meant to delete my signature stuff, but I think I ended up deleting my
> message instead! I should stick to my gmail account.
>
> Most of the mentally ill are not a danger to others. This amounts to a
> smear on a little understood community.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Gier, Nicholas <ngier at uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
> **
>
>
> Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus
> Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
> "The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM
> President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO
> www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm
> 208-301-1278
>
> A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees whose shade
> they know they shall never sit in.
>
> -Greek proverb
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of lfalen
> Sent: Fri 2/22/2013 10:41 AM
> To: Art Deco; Joe Campbell
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
> iw_mail p{margin:0;padding:0;}
> Joe
> Part of your second paragraph is inaccurate. There are vary few people who
> think that the 2nd amendment gives blanket protection . I am in favor of
> background checks. Those with a history of violence and most of those who
> are mentally ill(depends of the nature of the illness) should be denied
> the right to own a gun. I favor concealed carry permits, but only with
> strict safety training.
> Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: "Art Deco" <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: 02/22/13 07:14
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
> This is great Art. I was a math major but probability theory has always
> stumped me. As I said, I have no problem with Gary owning a gun. Roger and
> Paul might be a different matter. Just kidding! I think in the end, it is
> reasonable to let folks like Gary, Roger, and Paul own guns for home
> protection. Not a big issue for me, though it might be for others.
>
> But it strikes me that a lot of the claims that these folks offer in
> support of their "right" to own guns are just plain false. For instance, it
> is false that the 2nd amendment gives a blanket protection against all gun
> control.
>
> Another example would be the supposed "safety" of owning a firearm. Note
> that I might think the safety level (however you wish to measure that) is
> much less than say Gary thinks it is but still agree with Gary that it is
> safe enough for the government to not get involved.
>
> My claim, then, if I understand your terms below, is about general risk
> since I couldn't possibly calculate the specific risks for Roger, Paul, or
> Gary. Besides, I concede the use of guns for protection of one's family
> (though I won't speculate on the kinds of guns needed for this usage). My
> claim is that there is a greater general risk of owning a gun IN THIS LOW
> CRIME AREA than not. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I feel relatively
> certain that, in general, a gun is more likely to be used to harm someone
> who is not a criminal than it will be used to protect anyone from harm. And
> in this area the chances of using a gun for protection are so low, I'm not
> sure how much this last claim would be undermined were we to switch to a
> discussion about specific risk or the expected value of specific risks. I
> concede that owning a gun for protection, even in this area, might be a
> rational decision
> (understood in some way).
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> I am reposting this because there was a calculation mistake, and other
> feedback has shown that it needs to be explained much clearer.
>
>
>
> @Joe,
>
>
> Empirical evidence is important, and especially some general estimate of
> the risk.
>
>
> However, the general risk is different from a specific risk, and more
> important is the expected value of the risk
>
>
> If for example, I propose to ay you $100 if a throw of a die is greater
> than 1, but you pay me $100 if the throw equals 1.
>
>
> EV = (5/6)*100 - (1/6)*100 = $87.560, normally a very good bet for you in
> the long run, and little but some risk in a single trial.
>
>
> Social scientists, including economist generally recommend a course of
> action x if the EV(x) > 0.
>
>
> Unfortunately, this is not always correct, and in fact, can lead to a
> disastrous decision which a rational person would not make.
>
>
> First, in the analysis of risk it is important to distinguish weighing the
> EV for a single instance (trail) and over many instances.
>
>
> Second, although an EV(action x) maybe very high, in a single instance the
> possible loss may not make the risk worthwhile.
>
>
> Suppose we change the game above to the following.
>
>
> Assume Joe's total asset - all liabilities including his home are $600,000.
>
>
> Joe is offered the following game to be played only once:
>
>
> If a die is thrown and the result > 1, then Joe gets $2,400,000.
>
> If the die thrown = 1, then Joe loses all his assets and agrees to resign
> his job immediately.
>
>
>
>
> Should Joe play the game - x?
>
>
> EV(x) = (5/6)(2,400,000) - (1/6)($600,000) = $2,000,000 - $100,000 =
> $1,900,000
>
>
> Although the reward is great even for a philosopher, should Joe take a 1/6
> of losing everything and becoming homeless and losing his job?
>
>
> Most of us, though not all, would not play a similar game since the
> improbable result of losing everything is to much pay.
>
>
> [Note: that if Joe were given the opportunity to play the game 100 times
> instead of once, and the results averages, it would be rational to play the
> game.]
>
>
>
> The same is true of playing Russian Roulette for a reward of $1,000,000.
> To see the relevancy of this to the present issue:
>
>
> EV = (5/6)($1,000,000) - (1/6)(Death) = ?
>
>
> Given someone's life's situation, like owing millions of debts to the
> Mafia, for example, the choice to play may be a rational decision; for most
> of us it would not be a rational decision.
>
>
>
> The difference between the above examples and real life is that in real
> life the probability of the outcomes and even the nature of the outcomes
> are difficult to accurately estimate.
>
>
> Nick presents statistics/probability of the downside of gun ownership.
> First, it is not clear how accurate these numbers are, how they vary over
> different locations, conditions, gun ownership knowledge and practices,
> etc. In addition, obviously there are numerous kinds of outcomes of various
> degrees of seriousness. Hence, it is not clear at all how to calculate the
> the EV of gun ownership for protection in the home. The risk assessment is
> different in Moscow with a low crime rate than in a ghetto with a high rate
> of violent crime.
>
>
> The dialogue between Paul and Donovan illustrates among other things such
> as individual values, the difficulty of calculating the EV of gun ownership
> in particular situations and how it apples to single trial instances as
> opposed to over the long run.
>
>
> Gary Crabtree with his large knowledge of firearm his skill, and hopefully
> carefully applied safety practices will have a different EV than someone
> who buys a Saturday Night Special, and takes little or no training in its
> use. The EV for someone without a firearm is different yet.
>
>
> In the absence of perfect knowledge (which characterizes most of life)
> different people assess risks differently, and not always rationally, and
> hence disputes about gun ownership in the home arise, and are not likely to
> be resolved easily or at all.
>
>
>
> Second, as shown above, decisions for a one trial outcome are not the same
> as that of betting over the long run.
>
>
>
> w.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Donovan Arnold <
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> My stuffed animals were as utilitarian in protecting me from the monsters
> under my bed, in my closet and trying to get into my bedroom window at
> night as guns are in keeping rapists out of your bed, robbers out of your
> closest and murders coming through your window. It is just a security
> blanket. In reality, stuffed animals and guns prevent neither. They are
> utilitarian only in the psychology of the possessor.
>
> Guns have one utilitarian function, to effectively kill. I don't need to
> kill anyone, so it serves no utilitarian function for me. I generally have
> a prevention or alternative action in mind other than killing someone in
> most scenarios of life. I'm sure there are instances where a gun might be
> handy, but for me, the odds of an accidental death or injury outweighs the
> odds of it coming in handy for me to keep one on my person at all times in
> a civilian setting.
>
> You want to own a firearm you can. But don't pretend owning a gun makes
> you bullet proof, or safe, or it is as practical to carry even as a
> screwdriver or hammer. Your odds of running into a loose screw is much
> higher then a person you can shoot. You want to be a utilitarian carry a
> screwdriver or a hammer, nor a gun.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>; Art Deco <
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:19 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
>
>
>
> Which would you rather have if your life were on the line? A gun or a
> stuffed animal?
>
> Which would you rather have if your house was on fire? A fire
> extinguisher or a stuffed animal? I mean, don't get me wrong, I like
> stuffed animals as much as your normal middle-aged man, but don't you think
> you'd rather have a smoke detector in case of a fire, a poncho if you're
> stuck out in the weather while hiking, a donut tire if you get a flat, an
> air bag if you get in a head-on collision, etc, etc? I mean, maybe if you
> were being attacked by a band of rabid Japanese schoolgirls having a
> stuffed animal with you that you could throw as a diversion might actually
> be handy. I just can't think of too many other scenarios where I'd need
> one.
>
> Seriously, don't you think there's a utilitarian use to having a firearm
> around?
>
> Paul
>
> On 02/21/2013 05:27 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
>
> People want guns for the same reason children want stuffed animals. They
> serve no practical use in most instances but it gives them a sense of
> security that nothing else can. Feeling secure and having a sense of some
> control is a necessity for many people. Some people don't or cannot control
> their environment and so are in constant danger or feel they are. A gun,
> returns some of the feeling back. It doesn't do anything for my sense of
> security. However, I still do have a couple of stuffed animals from my
> childhood and as gifts, so who am I to judge.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
>
> From: Gary Crabtree mailto:moscowlocksmith at gmail.com<moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
> To: Art Deco mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com<art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
>
>
>
> I agree (I think) I rationally choose not to discard a potentially
> valuable tool based on how unlikely it is that I will need to apply it in
> any one specific application and as such refuse to play russian roulette.
>
> Likelihood of firearm as useful tool in home defense scenario <1/6
> (doubtless far less given our community) but not =0
> Likelihood of firearm as useful tool when not available =0
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> @Joe,
>
>
> Empirical evidence is important, and especially some general estimate of
> the risk.
>
>
> However, the general risk is different from a specific risk, and more
> important is the expected value of the risk
>
>
> If for example, I propose to ay you $100 if a throw of a die is greater
> than 1, but you pay me $100 if the throw equals 1.
>
>
> EV = (5/6)*100 - (1/6)*100 = $500, normally a very good bet for you in the
> long run, and little but some risk in a single trial.
>
>
> To see the relevancy of this to the present issue, just change the above
> game to Russian Roulette.
>
> The owner of a gun for protection despite the odds, rationally chooses not
> to pay Russian Roulette.
>
>
> w.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> In and of itself, no. If he grins, pulls a knife and advances, most likely
> the answer will be a reluctant yes.
>
> I realize full well how unlikely it is that a home defense scenario is,
> living on the sleepy Palouse and own firearms for reasons that go beyond
> protection. I simply do not want my rights curtailed based on the shaky
> statistical argument of lack of need.
>
> g
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> So if the intoxicated college student who wanders into your home says "Or
> what?" your plan is to shoot him?
>
> You keep missing this point: the scenario that you imagine is improbable.
> There are other more probable scenarios where you end up harming yourself
> or an innocent victim rather than protecting yourself.
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:43 AM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The point that you and most of the other anti-firearm respondents
> continually miss is that I, nor Paul or Roger are not advocating the
> Fearless Fosdick/LAPD tactic of firing a warning shot into the back of the
> head of our lovable and slightly confused/intoxicated intruder. What I, and
> I believe the others are saying is that a weapon can be a usefull tool in
> certain situations and while some may elect to not have that tool at their
> disposal, I would like to be able to have it as one of my options. Any sane
> person would prefer that an intruder in their home simply leave when told.
> Having a weapon forestalls the intruders potential response of "or what."
>
> g
>
>
>
> From: Donovan Arnold
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:28 PM
> To: Gary Crabtree ; Art Deco
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess that would work if you sat behind your door with a gun waiting for
> an unexpected guest. The smartest thing to do if you suspect people are
> trying to get into your house would be to exit through the nearest door or
> window. Then call the police. When they exit the house the police will be
> there to nab them, or you can slash their tires and have fun watching them
> trying to escape with your insured television.
>
> Keep in mind, if you shoot an unarmed person that is not 100% in your
> house you are in legal trouble. A dead body in your house will be cleaned
> up and removed at your expense, and it isn't cheap. And you will have to
> disclose the death on the sale of the home, which will cost you $10,000s.
> You will have to live with the fact that you probably killed an innocent
> person. Chances are someone that entered your home unexpectedly in Moscow
> would be an intoxicated college student whose biggest threat would be
> vomits on your living room carpet.
>
> There are countless risks for getting into a gun battle with an unknown
> person, the risks of insuring your belongs and beating feet at the sign of
> danger are much less and have far better outcomes. I'm not against owning a
> gun, but that scenario is a stupid reason to use a gun. I would use a gun
> if I was out of the immediate reach of the police and there was a clear and
> present danger to my life or the life of another. With the possible
> exception if I was robbed constantly with no help from the police or
> insurance companies.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
> From: Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
> To: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
>
> The problem does not seem at all insurmountable.
>
> Problem, person(s) force entry to ones home without invitation.
>
> Solution. Point weapon in general direction of intruder and request
> (insist) they leave.
>
> Outcome. They comply or they do not.
>
> Compliance equals positive resolution to problem.
>
> Noncompliance results in negative outcome for intruder.
>
> The real problem stems from not having the proper tools to affect the
> desired outcome.
>
> g
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The problem of dealing with intruders involves sometimes a dangerous lack
> of information.
>
>
> Is the intruder armed?
>
>
> Is there more than one?
>
>
>
> What are the intentions of of the intruder?
>
>
> Who is the intruder? Is she/he someone known? What is the relevant
> history of the intruder?
>
>
> Are there effective/non-lethal ways of neutralizing the intruder?
>
>
> How can those intruded upon calculate the the risk to themselves, and
> decide upon the action to be taken?
>
>
>
> w.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> These are empirically claims. Could be that pulling out a gun increases
> your risk. It depends on a lot of factors.
>
>
> The big question is: does the potential for help outweigh the risk of harm?
>
>
> And I hate to tell you that in a region with a low incidence of gun
> violence, the answer is 'No.' Paul's weapons are more likely to cause him
> harm than they are to protect him.
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Once "he" becomes aware of said gun it becomes a powerful deterrent to
> staying in your house much less helping himself to your belongings or
> continued good health.
>
> g
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This is what listening to pop music can do to you!
>
>
> Paul: If he's in your house, then the gun was not a deterrent.
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> But not in a judgmental way. I'm too busy singing to put anybody down.
>
> sr
>
>
> From: jampot at roadrunner.com
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:02:11 -0800
>
>
> Now you're just monkeeing around.
>
> g
>
>
>
> From: Sunil Ramalingam
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:07 PM
> Cc: vision 2020
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
>
>
>
> The premise of your post was that he was breaking into homes when people
> were there. Now you're inventing his motive to kill you. No, if he saw your
> face, he'd be a believer, not a killer.
>
>
> Sunil
>
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:56:57 -0800
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
>
> It didn't say he was. If he did, though, I'd want to be able to protect
> myself if he ran across me in a home he thought was empty and he got it
> through his head that I had to die because I'd seen his face. Or maybe
> he's desperate, and now he's willing to try hitting a house that is
> occupied but looks like he could rob it regardless.
>
> It's a tool of preparedness. I'd rather not assume that he's harmless if
> he's breaking into houses and robbing them. If my assumption is wrong, I
> could die. I'd rather not throw away my chance at survival because "OMG!
> Guns are bad!"
>
> It doesn't mean, by the way, that I'd just shoot this guy for breaking
> into my house. But a loaded weapon is a good deterrent, and if it turns
> out my life is at stake, I'd rather have a gun than a shoe I could throw at
> him, or whatever I happened to have at hand.
>
> This isn't rocket science. Be prepared. It's the good old Boy Scout
> motto. I also have a smoke detector and a fire extinguisher.
>
> Don't let the "guns are killing our kids!" narrative drive your views.
>
> Paul
>
> On 02/19/2013 10:43 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Where does it say he's breaking into homes when people are in? I had a lot
> of burglary cases, and my mistakenly charged clients were usually alleged
> to have entered homes when no one was there. Lots easier to leave with
> stuff that way, said the authorities.
>
> Sunil
>
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:02:25 -0800
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: thansen at moscow.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
>
>
> What's paranoid about locking up when you're out and being ready to defend
> yourself when you're at home when there is a known burglar in the area?
> Being prepared is not the same thing as being paranoid. If someone is
> crazy enough to break into your home while you are there, you can go ahead
> and classify that as a situation fraught with danger, in which case having
> some means to protect yourself might be called for. There are plenty of
> reasonable scenarios where a would-be burglar happens upon a member of the
> household when he thought the place was empty that could end up very badly
> for the person he stumbled upon. If the burglar knew you were at home and
> invaded the home anyway, then you've definitely got a problem if you are
> happily unarmed.
>
> Better to have that gun when you need it than not. If guns frighten you,
> which I find hard to believe because of your military background, then at
> least pick up a good aluminum baseball bat.
>
> Do you think I'm paranoid because I keep a set of jumper cables in my
> trunk in case my battery dies and I need a jump from a kind stranger? Are
> you one of those people that joyously flit from situation to situation
> relying on the gods to keep you out of trouble?
>
> Paul
>
> On 02/19/2013 01:18 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:
>
>
> <ATT00001>
>
>
> Paranoia . . . self-destroya.
>
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.moscowcares.com/
>
> Tom "Proud to be a Filthy Liberal Scum" Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================= 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=======================================================<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<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=======================================================<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 <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 <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 <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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.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 <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 <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 <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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.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 <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 <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=======================================================<Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> Most of the mentally ill are NOT a danger to others. That's widespread
> misconception, and amounts to a smear on a little understood community.
>
> Nick
>
> =======================================================
> 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 <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
> =======================================================
>
--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130222/b1da94d3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list