On Dec 23, 2:35 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:15:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with
that.

Then why do you presume to inject your irrelevant fantasy world into
reality so frequently?

How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In
other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting gallery,
and
you're the duck?

Irrelevant. The right to own something confers no obligation to
defend a need to own it, to you or anyone else.

Don't start the bait-and-switch, Don. We aren't talking about rights.
We're
talking about Dave's definition of "reality." His reality appears to be
pretty weird one, in terms of actual events.

You know full well that I have no problem with his right to defend
himself.
What I have a problem with is his idea of what the real probabilities are.
Andrew seems to be living in the real world. Dave appears to be living in
a
bad movie.

My point is, why are we talking about Dave's definition of reality?
Or your, or Andrew's, or anyone else's?

Because, if you read the thread, that's what Dave and Steve were talking
about, while they were disparaging Andrew's, and to which I objected. It was
an unnecessary and sarcastic put-down after Andrew was making a pretty good
effort to express incredulity without being insulting. On top of it, their
remarks are based on baloney.

Steve says, "Enjoy your Pollyannish Utopia... Don't ferget yer rose colored
glasses when you go out." Dave says, "Then why do you presume to inject your
irrelevant fantasy world into reality so frequently?" Who is living in the
pollyanish [sic], utopian, irrelevant fantasy world? Not Andrew.







Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.

Yeah, like that. The point I'm making, which you're missing, is that
I
don't care that you don't get it. Really. But when I do care is when
peole who, like you, don't get it, want to stop me from dealing with
reality.

It sounds like Andrew lives in reality; you live in the fantasy. Do you
do
a
lot of dry fire practice before going to bed? Do you keep your gun handy
when you watch movies with bad guys on TV?

It sounds like Andrew's perception of reality is more in line with
yours.

It also seems to be more accurate, unless you're a gang-banger drug dealer
who lives in a crack alley on the bad side of Memphis.

Exactly. The "accuracy" depends entirely on one's circumstances and
experiences.

So, does Dave sell drugs and live in a crack alley? He says there have only
been a couple of murders in his area since the mid-'90s, so, much more
likely, Dave is inclined to get more emotionally upset over the very remote
chance he'll be threatened with a gun, while probably doing nothing
comparable to defend his life in potential car accidents. All accidents
together rank 5th among causes of death. Homicides, all causes, rank 15th.
Car accidents alone rank somewhere around 9th. Firearms homicides rank
around 18th.

In other words, the REALITY is that you should spend a great deal more
effort protecting yourself from car accidents, including such things as the
five-point harness and roll cages I mentioned before, if you are going to
deal with the REAL relative threats. And for God's sake, stay away from
motorcycles: the per-mile death rate riding those things is 20 times higher
than for cars (NHTSA, April, 2003).

As the man said, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but he isn't
entitled to his own facts. The truth is that the extensive effort some gun
owners put into defending themselves with a gun is NOT based on "reality,"
but rather it's based on the very common, very intense anger and resentment
we feel about the prospects of having our lives threatened, or taken, by
some criminal who uses a gun to coerce and kill.

Sticking to reality, the real threat Andrew faces from armed criminals is
quite small, if you look at the figures for Australia. He faces a *much*
greater threat from a car accident and from many other kinds of avoidable
circumstances, including overeating. g So, as I said, he's living
rationally in the real world. Dave and Steve...well, they're entitled to
their emotional reactions. There are just enough gun threats and homicides
out there that one can carry a gun to defend himself and be within reason.
And that's their choice, as I've said repeatedly. This isn't a question of
rights. It's a question of what the more "reality" driven course of action
is.

Anyone who is honest about this issue has to realize that the whole carry
issue is based on at least 75% emotion and maybe 25% reality. In the case of
most threats of that order of magnitude most of us exercise some caution but
we don't engage any extreme measures -- certainly nothing like dry-firing
your pistol every night. We incorporate those levels of danger into our list
of acceptable risks and get on with it. Heck, some people even ride
motorcycles. They have a *big* risk tolerance. I used to race sports cars,
ride motorcycles, and do lots of things that require a lot of risk
tolerance.

So the "reality" argument is so much hogwash. The crime figures show that
the risk for almost all of us, except for those people who live or work in
seriously crime-infested areas, is much lower than for other kinds of risks
we face. This isn't really about risks, in other words. It's about emotions,
and they aren't usually rational. The disparaging remarks Dave and Steve
made about Andrew's take on all this are just so much insulting baloney.

snip

You want to run some numbers, and see what's real? Or would you rather
live
in a fantasy world, like them?

Neither. Your gross numbers may not be another's particular reality.

Dave told us he lives in a fairly murder-free area. That appears to be his
"reality," in his own words.

snip

No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...

If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.

So, do you wear five-point harness, a Nomex suit, and have a roll cage in
your car? If not, why not? The risk of dying in a car accident has low
probability but high cost. If we applied your logic here, anyone who makes a
claim about what is a real threat and what is not (Dave and Steve), who
don't go to lengths comparable to carrying and training with a gun, with all
that entails, isn't being very consistent, is he? That is, unless he also
has an emotional motive regarding defense against armed criminals, as well
as a reality-based motive to protect his life.



You and I and Andrew do not feel the need to carry. Lucky us! I
certainly can see how others might, and I certainly can imagine
situations and circumstances where I definitely would.

Sure. So can I. I seriously doubt if Dave or Steve have a "need" that
exceeds their reality-based need to go to at least equal lengths in regard
to much more likely threats they face, but that's their business. I just
don't see how Dave or Steve get off claiming that Andrew is living a
fantasy.



Dave lives and breathes gratuitous patronization. It's time to toss a
little
back at him.

Tit for tat, eh?

I don't care what you call it, Don, but the kind of disparaging sarcasm I
referred to above shouldn't go unanswered.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Talking about reality...this is the reality.

TMT

Va. Tech families to lobby legislature By KRISTEN GELINEAU, Associated
Press Writer
Sun Dec 23

As he sat in a hospital, watching blood ooze from his son Colin's
gunshot wounds, Andrew Goddard negotiated with a higher power: Let my
son live, and I will do what I can to spare another parent this
torture.

Colin survived, despite the four bullets fired into him by Virginia
Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho.

Now his father is making good on the deal: He and relatives of others
killed or injured on the campus in Blacksburg will lobby for changes
to the state's gun and mental health laws during the General Assembly
session that begins Jan. 9.

Together, they hope to be a powerful lobbying force with the potential
to make changes in areas that have historically had gained little
traction with Virginia legislators.

"They stand in the position unlike no one else that will be in this
whole process," said state Sen. Kenneth Cuccinelli. "And they will get
listened to."

Since the April 16 shootings, in which Cho killed 32 others and
himself after a long history of mental illness, several of the
victims' families have demanded stricter oversight of gun purchases
and a revamping of the state's mental health system. Nine survivors
and 16 families of those killed signed a letter urging Congress to
strengthen the background check system for weapons purchases.

Cho was able to pass a background check and buy two guns despite
having been deemed mentally defective by a Virginia court. In
response, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine signed an executive order requiring
that anyone ordered by a court to get mental health treatment be added
to a state police database of people barred from buying guns.

However, people can still buy guns through other means that require no
background check in Virginia, such as gun shows where scores of people
sell or swap firearms.

Efforts to close the so-called gun show loophole have failed
repeatedly, and even Andrew Goddard -- the most outspoken family member
on the issue -- acknowledges that getting lawmakers to close it this
year will be a struggle.

"It's a tremendous uphill battle," he said. "I have no doubt that
we're going to suffer severe defeats."

But Goddard is ready to fight. He is organizing an advocacy day next
month at the Capitol that will include a "lie-in," in which
participants will lie on the ground to represent the shooting victims.
His son plans to make a speech. And other families have already begun
speaking out during pre-session legislative meetings.

However, persuading Virginia lawmakers to impose any restrictions on
gun ownership is nearly impossible, said Stephen Farnsworth, a
political science professor at the University of Mary Washington in
Fredericksburg.

"The gun control issue is political dynamite in Virginia," Farnsworth
said. "There's no question that they are as effective a group of
lobbyists as one can imagine for gun control issues, but there are a
lot of people with a lot of money and a lot of interest in politicians
who are pro-gun in Virginia -- and that hasn't changed after the
Virginia Tech tragedy."

State Del. Jim Scott, who favors closing the gun show loophole, is
less certain.

"In any case of trying to change opinions, you really have to be well-
organized, focused and be sure that you have all the facts," Scott
said. "And my guess is they will be all of those."

The families have another factor on their side: emotional impact.

"A lot of what they bring to the table is a discomfort factor,"
Cuccinelli said. "You don't want to be ruling against families that
are in this kind of pain."

There was evidence of that discomfort at a recent meeting of lawmakers
and journalists, when several victims' relatives challenged a
legislator who opposes closing the loophole.

Joseph Samaha, whose daughter Reema was killed in the shootings, asked
state Sen.-elect Robert Hurt: "What is the fear of someone having to
go through the background check?"

Hurt responded that closing the loophole would infringe on a person's
right to possess a firearm.

"Is it a nuisance factor?" Samaha challenged.

Hurt paused, then said: "More important, it's a liberty factor."

The families will encounter many other lawmakers who share Hurt's
views, but they're determined to forge ahead.

"I am compelled to work on these issues so that no one has to suffer
the pain and loss that those parents and families have gone through
and continue to go through," said Lori Haas, whose daughter Emily
survived a gunshot wound. "If the General Assembly had worked harder
and done what was right to protect innocent people, we might not have
lost as many lives as we have in the last number of years in all types
of gun violence."

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League,
acknowledged the families' pain, but plans to push lawmakers to
protect gun owners' rights as usual this year.

"They're certainly going to draw sympathy -- they have my sympathy -- to
have lost someone the way they did," he said of the families. "On the
other hand, we cannot be ruled as a nation by emotion. We have to look
at this thing logically, and to try to control gun shows from what
happened makes no sense. Cho did not get his guns from a gun show."

The families pushing to close the loophole are quick to point out
they're not anti-gun; several are gun owners themselves, including
Mike White, whose daughter Nicole was killed.

"We're not looking to take rights away from the individual that wants
to buy a gun and act responsibly," White said. "We're looking to keep
the criminal from easily purchasing the gun."

Greg and Linda Gwaltney, whose son Matthew was killed, also are gun
owners. They plan to push lawmakers to close the loophole and also
hope lawmakers will reform Virginia's mental health system.

The governor has already proposed more funding and other changes to
the state's mental health system that closely mirror the
recommendations of an independent panel that investigated the
shootings.

A lack of understanding of the system's complexities and pitfalls has
kept lawmakers from acting until now, said state Del. Phillip
Hamilton, an authority on mental health legislation. But the shootings
fast-tracked the issue to the top of the agenda, he said.

"If no Virginia Tech parent or victim even contacted us or came
forward, I think you're going to see some significant changes,"
Hamilton said.

The families are not uniform in their beliefs, however. Holly Sherman,
whose daughter Leslie was killed in the shootings, understands it may
be healing for some of the families to lobby for changes to gun and
mental health laws. But she considers it a futile effort.

Sherman hopes others will focus on what she feels are commonsense
measures: running public service announcements to educate parents
about potentially dangerous behavior in their children, ensuring
schools properly handle troubled students and holding surprise
emergency drills at schools.

"There are some very inexpensive and easy measures to take immediately
that can have as much or more positive effect than new laws for
lawyers to fight and/or give people more fodder for lawsuits," she
wrote in an e-mail.

But for Andrew Goddard, changing the laws is essential.

"If I can save one family from that or one family from standing by a
gravestone, then it's worth it," he said.