[Vision2020] Huh?
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Tue Jan 1 16:59:14 PST 2013
You need to do some research. Actually there have been several informative
articles posted recently on the V by Art Deco, myself, and others that do a
much better job of explaining the point I'm making.
Suicide is not the only goal. Most of these folks have "empathy issues"
(inability to feel or appreciate the pain of others) and feel that they
have been wronged by society or others (and are thus justified in seeking
revenge) in addition to being suicidal, which would explain why they don't
attack police stations etc.
What is your view? Some people are just bad, so they decide to talk their
mother's guns and shoot up a bunch of school children so they can ...
How do YOU fill in the ellipses?
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> **
> "The point was that if potential shooters know that schools and other
> public venues will now have armed guards on hand, then it make have the
> wrong effect. It might be that potential shooters are MORE likely to flock
> to public venues; it might cause the number of shooting instances to rise
> instead of lowering those instances. Saundra made this initially and I
> think she's right. We need to do more research etc. before jumping to the
> conclusion that armed guards are the answer."
>
> This really doesn't make all that much sense. Events such as those we are
> discussing don't often occur at police stations or sheriffs departments.
> I've yet to hear of a similar situation occurring at a gun show or a
> rifle/pistol range. It seems that when the deranged decide to go on their
> spree they go where they can rack up high numbers and schools are prime
> targets. That said I disagree with the NRA in regard to putting an armed
> man in every school. Given the low probability of any given school
> suffering a mass shooting event it would be a total over-reaction. Allowing
> willing school personnel with CWP's to carry on the job however strikes me
> as a reasonable thing. A "gun free zone" policy and a placard at every
> entrance has proven to be ineffective in deterring shootings. Apparently
> the crazy don't stop to read signs.
>
> On a slightly different note, amid the furor to reinstate and expand upon
> "assault weapons" bans please see:
>
> http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
> Amazing how much traction this addition piece of information isn't
> getting. If the dread assault rifle and hi-cap magazines weren't a factor
> at the Sandy Hook incident, what should those folks who have a serious case
> of do something disease fall back on?
>
> g
>
> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 01, 2013 1:06 PM
> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> *Cc:* Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> ; Gary Crabtree<moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>;
> viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh?
>
> The point was that if potential shooters know that schools and other
> public venues will now have armed guards on hand, then it make have the
> wrong effect. It might be that potential shooters are MORE likely to flock
> to public venues; it might cause the number of shooting instances to rise
> instead of lowering those instances. Saundra made this initially and I
> think she's right. We need to do more research etc. before jumping to the
> conclusion that armed guards are the answer.
>
> You are correct that there have been cases in which armed citizens have
> "saved the day." There is also the Moscow case, where the young stud ran
> out in an effort to "help." I'm certain if you asked any police official
> whether he did more harm than good, they'd say more harm and would
> discourage such actions. But the fact is that this is a debatable issue.
> I've actually stated my view on the topic previously but I'll do so again.
> I'm sure I post too much for anyone to possibly keep up!
>
> Guns can help but guns also carry risks. If we're talking about armed
> citizens, who need not have any particular training with firearms or
> dangerous situations, the risk factor will certainly go up. Based on the
> information I've seen the key question is, What is the probability that a
> gun will be needed for protection? If it is relatively high -- if you are a
> police officer, or a drug dealer, or a prostitute, or live in an area with
> a high rate of gun violence -- then the benefits of having your own gun
> will likely outweigh the risks. If the chance of gun violence is relatively
> low -- as it is in Moscow, or in say a school building -- then the risks
> will likely outweigh the benefits. Since, as you and others continually
> point out, shootings by mass killers are relatively rare, introducing more
> guns into areas that are relatively safe -- like schools -- will likely
> increase gun accidents rather than save lives. It seems like a bad idea,
> based on everything that I've read.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>wrote:
>
>> **
>> I don't understand what a shooters suicidal tendencies would have to do
>> with anything. Dead sooner via bystanders intervention beats dead later via
>> self inflicted wound with a larger body count. As to your second point, I
>> can recall having read of armed citizens effectively intervening in various
>> situations to good effect. Granted I know of no instance with regard to a
>> mass shooting where an armed citizen saved the day but I do not remember an
>> instance where such action made things worse.
>>
>> g
>>
>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 01, 2013 10:02 AM
>> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>> *Cc:* Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> ; Gary Crabtree<moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>;
>> viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh?
>>
>> An undeniably valid point is that most shooters in mass killings are
>> suicidal. Most of them kill themselves or attempt to kill themselves after
>> killing others. There is no reason more reason to think that it will help
>> the situation than there is to think that it will make matters worse.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> I dunno, Gary – if you think my response was “extra unpleasant” for
>>> pointing out the sheer lunacy of the proposal, I think you need to read
>>> some of your own responses . . . and grow the thicker skin as you seem to
>>> expect from others."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't expect much of anything from others and as your pal tom has
>>> pointed out, my skin is more than adequately thick. I was simply pointing
>>> out that charging out of the chute with your shrill fishwife demeanor might
>>> be less then conducive to dialog. I know I certainly find it off putting,
>>> perhaps in your circles it's considered charming. Either way, I was just
>>> asking and now the answer is clear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And, WTG! Completely ignore the valid points I raise. I guess that’s
>>> the only response you could make given the unmitigated and uncountable
>>> instances in which the mere presence of guns hasn’t stopped shooters, spree
>>> & otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you know, for instance, that there was someone *right there*carrying a gun in the Tucson massacre, yet
>>> *unarmed* people had the shooter controlled before the heat-packing
>>> dude could do a thing?****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I provided no response because your point is anything but valid. Of
>>> course there will be instances where good guys with firearms won't carry
>>> the day in that they can't be everywhere. Did the fellow you refer to in
>>> Tucson or the armed individuals at Columbine make the situation worse?
>>> There are countless situations where an armed response by a responsible
>>> citizen has saved lives, their own and those of others. Trying to make the
>>> argument that since they can't be the perfect solution in every instance,
>>> they can't be the solution in any instance is faulty logic in the extreme.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 31, 2012 10:16 PM
>>> *To:* 'Gary Crabtree' <jampot at roadrunner.com> ; 'Gary Crabtree'<moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>;
>>> 'viz' <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> *Subject:* RE: [Vision2020] Huh?
>>>
>>> I dunno, Gary – if you think my response was “extra unpleasant” for
>>> pointing out the sheer lunacy of the proposal, I think you need to read
>>> some of your own responses . . . and grow the thicker skin as you seem to
>>> expect from others.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> And, WTG! Completely ignore the valid points I raise. I guess that’s
>>> the only response you could make given the unmitigated and uncountable
>>> instances in which the mere presence of guns hasn’t stopped shooters, spree
>>> & otherwise.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Did you know, for instance, that there was someone *right there*carrying a gun in the Tucson massacre, yet
>>> *unarmed* people had the shooter controlled before the heat-packing
>>> dude could do a thing?****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Yet another inconvenient fact, eh?****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Saundra****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> *From:* Gary Crabtree [mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com]
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:38 AM
>>> *To:* Saundra Lund; 'Gary Crabtree'; 'viz'
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh?****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> 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 <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 <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/20130101/9db6a239/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list