[Vision2020] Huh?

[Joe Campbell]

Maybe wrt last proposal. Worth exploring.

On Dec 23, 2012, at 4:41 AM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> "...why is every conservative favorably inclined toward the NRA plan..."
>  
> I don't believe that I have heard anybody, certainly none on this forum who jump for joy over the proposal. Speaking for myself, I would hope for a different solution. My only defense was to the absurd claims that were made as to how the plan couldn't be implemented in a timely manner, A defense borne out buy the fact that many schools have implemented a similar plan already.
>  
> A thought that occurs to me that might be a direct help in matters such as this would be for the NRA and government to team up in a massive education campaign. The main thrust of which would be to encourage firearms owners to obtain and religiously use decent quality gun safes to store their weapons. This could be combined with a government incentive in the form of a tax credit to help offset the expense of the purchase. Had the Sandyhook shooters mom had her rifle properly secured we might be having a different conversation.
>  
> g
> 
> From: Joe Campbell
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 1:54 AM
> To: Scott Dredge
> Cc: Tom Hansen ; <jampot at roadrunner.com> ; viz
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh?
> 
> Here's my beef. Since Reagan Conservatives have been trying to cut government programs. Yet why is every conservative favorably inclined toward the NRA plan, which is just more big government? 99.9% of the time we're told by  conservatives that you can't trust government, that they are inept. Yet not here.
> 
> And why did you, Scott, in your previous post, suppose that the burden is on those who oppose the NRA to explain why it is economically infeasible? Is that how it works? I can put forth any proposal I want and it's up to you to refute it or I get to keep talking about it?
> 
> Tell me the details of the plan and if you can't do it -- which you can't -- then it's not really a plan.
> 
> On Dec 22, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> <Who is likely to gain, both financially and politically if 130,000 schools were suddenly required to procure armed security for their campuses?>
>> 
>> Good - we need more home grown jobs with decent pay & benefits. That's just a positive side effect.
>> 
>> Who are the financial and political losers, what are their beefs, and where are they drawing their line in the sand?
>> 
>> -Scott
>> 
>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 12:37 PM, "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Here is an accumulation of NRA supporters.  Hint:  They are ALL gun clubs and gun manufacturers.
>>> 
>>> http://www.nrafoundation.org/about/corporate/clubs.asp
>>> 
>>> Here is a list of NRA corporate sponsors (not a PTA in the bunch)
>>> 
>>> http://www.friendsofnra.org/corporate-sponsors.aspx
>>> 
>>> Who is likely to gain, both financially and politically if 130,000 schools were suddenly required to procure armed security for their campuses?
>>> 
>>> Now, "As for unreasonable people . . . "
>>> 
>>> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>> 
>>> "Moscow Cares"
>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>   
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Joe,
>>>> 
>>>> You may ultimately be right that 'it is a bad plan', but obviously not everyone has come to that same conclusion.  IMO it would be a good use of time to FULLY vet that proposal along with its advantages (if any) and disadvantages.  And if you know things that others don't and it's all crystal clear to you, then by all means shoot holes in the idea and preferably with cold hard verifiable facts and statistics.
>>>> 
>>>> <it might draw shooters since most of them are suicidal as well as homicidal>
>>>> Have the FBI profilers weigh in on this
>>>> Have mental health professionals weigh in on this
>>>> 
>>>> <The plan is economically unfeasible.>
>>>> Show the economic numbers in comparison to the price of unleashed mayhem
>>>> Put forth all ideas of funding prevention programs and similarly fully vet each of those ideas
>>>> 
>>>> Ultimately the plan either stands up to detailed scrutiny or can be demonstrably shown as unfeasible. unwise, etc.  The NRA says this is the answer and they have legions of supporters that take that as the gospel truth since this 'group think' seems to be a human attribute as can be seen almost everywhere in politics, religion, v2020, and so on.
>>>> 
>>>> Reasonable people can clearly see the truth when it's presented clearly, crisply, and - above all - accurately.  As for unreasonable people, there's no hope for them.
>>>> 
>>>> -Scott
>>>> 
>>>> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:11:19 -0800
>>>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>> To: jampot at roadrunner.com
>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh?
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121223/0c9bc8f0/attachment.html>