[Vision2020] Huh?

Tue Jan 1 19:56:31 PST 2013

My view is that some people are crazy and evil and that in many if not most cases there is no answer to the because/why questions. 

No article you or Wayne or anyone else has made it clear to me how allowing willing teachers with CWP's would make schools any more of a target then they are now in that the potential shooter would have no way of knowing who if anyone at a school might be armed. Is this the be all and end all solution to the problem, of course not. But it does seem like a small reasonable start.

g

From: Joe Campbell 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 4:59 PM
To: Gary Crabtree 
Cc: Saundra Lund ; Gary Crabtree ; viz 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh?

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 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 1:06 PM
  To: Gary Crabtree 
  Cc: Saundra Lund ; Gary Crabtree ; viz 
  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 
    Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 10:02 AM
    To: Gary Crabtree 
    Cc: Saundra Lund ; Gary Crabtree ; viz 
    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 
      Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:16 PM
      To: 'Gary Crabtree' ; 'Gary Crabtree' ; 'viz' 
      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 

      Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 8:18 PM

      To: 'Gary Crabtree' ; 'viz' 

      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/20130101/ec0bd3cf/attachment-0001.html>