School Shooting in Minneapolis

ThazzarBaal

ThazzarBaal

Registered Senior Member
Another Shooting in America. This time the shooting took place at a k-8 Catholic School, merely a week after the beginning of a new brightly futured school year, yet tainted now with fear and trauma.

Read more

Life in America is beginning to root itself in trauma, inevitably disabling this nations future leadership via hardship, mental instability, and greater struggle.

To elaborate on why the ethics forum: What would be an ethical way to better equip our citizens to deal with these types of experiences. This happening in yet another religious oriented institution, may or may not be relevant to the discussion itself.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
To elaborate on why the ethics forum: What would be an ethical way to better equip our citizens to deal with these types of experiences. This happening in yet another religious oriented institution, may or may not be relevant to the discussion itself.
Click to expand...
I think the only real answer here is to eliminate these types of experiences altogether. I don't know that there really is a healthy or ethical way to deal with something which is totally incoherent.
 
parmalee said:
I think the only real answer here is to eliminate these types of experiences altogether. I don't know that there really is a healthy or ethical way to deal with something which is totally incoherent.
Click to expand...
Caveat: I come from the RD Laingian/Gregory Batesonian schools of thought. We are dealing with classic double bind scenarios wherein we are asked to grapple/cope/deal with totally conflicting and contradictory messaging. There is no coherent response to such.
 
parmalee said:
Caveat: I come from the RD Laingian/Gregory Batesonian schools of thought. We are dealing with classic double bind scenarios wherein we are asked to grapple/cope/deal with totally conflicting and contradictory messaging. There is no coherent response to such.
Click to expand...
Better yet, disarming the entire lot of Americans sounds much safer than just on a State decision basis.

Butter knives and sarcasm go in in hand every now and then. Typically when the sarcasm is thick and obvious.
 
An ethical way to help prepare the kids is the subject of the thread in light of the linked events. I'm thinking we have every reason to maintain our gun rights and only one not to. We call it easy pickings and collateral damage due to being ill-prepared.

When the police man ensures the kids that all the guns are going away, aside from maybe a few criminals possessing them, I wonder who would feel worse, the police man or the kids?
 
Last edited:
ThazzarBaal said:
An ethical way to help prepare the kids is the subject of the thread in light of the linked events. I'm thinking we have every reason to maintain our gun rights and only one not to. We call it easy pickings and collateral damage due to being ill-prepared.

When the police man ensures the kids that all the the guns are going away, aside from maybe a few criminals possessing them, I wonder who would feel worse, the police man or the kids?
Click to expand...
The bolded portion illustrates precisely why this is a double bind scenario, and not like a "no-win situation" or whatever. With the latter, the terms tend to be readily articulable, almost self-evident (in a manner of speaking). With the former, not so much. What, are you gonna appeal to the Constitution, with it's rather curiously vague and imprecise phrasing? Are you a Constitutional scholar, and, if you are, are you some sort of originalist? And if yes and yes: which sort? Then you're confronted with all the usual: the Constitution can be--and has been--amended, the Constitution was written a couple of hundred years ago, blah blah. So then you're asked to appeal to your own reasoning. What are these reasons for "maintain(ing) our gun rights"? Of what practical use is a gun? And even if you can come up with some, mightn't the tremendous potential for mishap outweigh these? I mean, I can think of a lot of good uses for C-4--far more than I can think of for a gun (these days I also live out in the middle of nowhere and that's a significant factor)--but, again, there's tremendous potential for mishap, and so I can only have so much ( or none, depending upon one's jurisdiction).

When people start coming up with intelligible reasons for maintaining these "rights", I'll consider the merits for such and I'll consider that such attitudes and sentiments are not simply some of the leading factors contributing to an epidemic of (a variety of) schizophrenia and trauma within the US.
 
У нас хранение , ношение, и свободная продажа оружия запрещены, но стрельбы в учебных заведениях и других общественных местах тоже бывают. Запреты не останавливают преступников, зато могут помочь тем, кого эти запреты не касаются, творить беззаконие.
 
The meaning of "shall not be infringed"
is
Shall not be infringed
(This is really simple stuff)

anecdote
long ago when I was about 10-11 years old, my uncle sold me a single shot .22 caliber rifle.
It seems most likely that you can learn different things at different stages of development.
When hunting with a single shot rifle, you get good or go home empty handed and hungry.
By the time I was 12 or 13, I could do a head shot of a bird on a wire
By the time I was 13-14 I could hit a head shot of a running rabbit
By the time I was 15-16, I could hit a flying bird
all with that old single shot .22 rifle (I still have it)

Neither of my brothers hunted while young and now, when we are all old(well past 70), they still can not shoot worth a damn.
(maybe they try too hard?)
It seems that I learned when my mind and body were ready to learn, and the skill lasted.
Along the way, I learned something of the intuitive nature of animals.

Give(or sell) a child a single shot rifle, and you will be more likely to get a marksman from the man.
 
parmalee said:
The bolded portion illustrates precisely why this is a double bind scenario, and not like a "no-win situation" or whatever. With the latter, the terms tend to be readily articulable, almost self-evident (in a manner of speaking). With the former, not so much. What, are you gonna appeal to the Constitution, with it's rather curiously vague and imprecise phrasing? Are you a Constitutional scholar, and, if you are, are you some sort of originalist? And if yes and yes: which sort? Then you're confronted with all the usual: the Constitution can be--and has been--amended, the Constitution was written a couple of hundred years ago, blah blah. So then you're asked to appeal to your own reasoning. What are these reasons for "maintain(ing) our gun rights"? Of what practical use is a gun? And even if you can come up with some, mightn't the tremendous potential for mishap outweigh these? I mean, I can think of a lot of good uses for C-4--far more than I can think of for a gun (these days I also live out in the middle of nowhere and that's a significant factor)--but, again, there's tremendous potential for mishap, and so I can only have so much ( or none, depending upon one's jurisdiction).

When people start coming up with intelligible reasons for maintaining these "rights", I'll consider the merits for such and I'll consider that such attitudes and sentiments are not simply some of the leading factors contributing to an epidemic of (a variety of) schizophrenia and trauma within the US.
Click to expand...

One one hand, basic needs come to mind. On the other hand, even without basic needs, a need may be present. So, in light of your constitutional spin and inquiry, I'll submit to some regulations and training such as safety and proper handling of a gun. Beyond this, mishaps happen, and sometimes even more so after the implementation of safety features and potentially flawed mechanisms that can both distract and malfunction.

As a citizen, I will suggest that safety should come first. The question becomes which is safer and why. Parenting no doubt plays a role, as does the seriousness of ownership or a lack of. I can't help but wish to illustrate and isolate a State that chooses no guns amidst many states that allow them. Looking at the world we live in, I'm sure you can catch the aim.
 
Apparently two kids were praying when shot and killed. Eight more kids were injured, 6 of whom are in critical condition.

The shooter chose a window to shoot through, after which the shooter apparently turned the gun on himself.

Tragic
 
sculptor said:
The meaning of "shall not be infringed"
is
Shall not be infringed
(This is really simple stuff)

anecdote
long ago when I was about 10-11 years old, my uncle sold me a single shot .22 caliber rifle.
It seems most likely that you can learn different things at different stages of development.
When hunting with a single shot rifle, you get good or go home empty handed and hungry.
By the time I was 12 or 13, I could do a head shot of a bird on a wire
By the time I was 13-14 I could hit a head shot of a running rabbit
By the time I was 15-16, I could hit a flying bird
all with that old single shot .22 rifle (I still have it)

Neither of my brothers hunted while young and now, when we are all old(well past 70), they still can not shoot worth a damn.
(maybe they try too hard?)
It seems that I learned when my mind and body were ready to learn, and the skill lasted.
Along the way, I learned something of the intuitive nature of animals.

Give(or sell) a child a single shot rifle, and you will be more likely to get a marksman from the man.
Click to expand...
Marksmanship matters, but so does mentality, character, and personality. Why do these matter? Some people have proven to be less concerned about the well being of others, sadistic sometimes and cruel. I wouldn't feel comfortable with any gun in those hands, but it does happen. Mental evaluations can help classify but it is very likely more so accessible via community interaction and what is known about people, The down side to this is lots of people lie. So, the quagmire is ever present it seems.
 
From a supporter of the second amendment.

If you use you gun irresponsibly you pay.

If you shoot someone in other than self or other defense, you pay. If you wound them, you go to jail. If you kill them, you die.

If you injure or kill yourself, it's your problem.

If someone steals and uses your gun, it's their problem
 
sculptor said:
The meaning of "shall not be infringed"
is
Shall not be infringed
(This is really simple stuff)
Click to expand...
Something something about slaves goes here. Something else about "persons" also goes here. By the original Constitution, I am not a person, and I suspect you might not be either--have you always been a "property owner"? I generally take things written more than a couple hundred years ago with many grains of salt, especially when the authors would not even regard me as a person (bluntly, such "persons" ought to go fuck themselves--by which I mean off themselves--they've got the means--or submit voluntarily to be euthanized). Moreover, in my experience, fundamentalists of every stripe tend to be amongst the most dangerously idiotic sorts out there.
 
exchemist said:
Yeah yeah. While you all have GUNS, more of your kids will die. My sympathy on this stupid topic is long gone.
Click to expand...
And if we no longer have guns, the same is no doubt true. Having sympathy on the topic is one thing, understanding the topic another. I have less sympathy now than I did 15 years ago, but I am a little more understanding now than I was then. In any case, our kids are still dying and from multiple things, including but not limited to guns, drugs, stupidity, bad parenting, racial division, hate crimes, and traffic. With that stated, the topic isn't about guns. It's about how to best prepare our kids in an ethical way for the growing dangers associated with life and the world we live in. Child abuse, CPS calls, and disagreements in how people parent their children seems another point of contention, so ethics do matter.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
From a supporter of the second amendment.

If you use you gun irresponsibly you pay.

If you shoot someone in other than self or other defense, you pay. If you wound them, you go to jail. If you kill them, you die.

If you injure or kill yourself, it's your problem.

If someone steals and uses your gun, it's their problem
Click to expand...

From me, another second amendment supporter:

I prefer the first amendment, but I support the second for the following reasons.

1. People can be dangerous and I love my country.
2. I enjoy hunting. It seems much more humane than the slaughter houses.
3. National defense is always something citizens should concern themselves with, whether with the 1st amendment rights as the standard or with the 2nd amendment rights out of necessity.
4. Gun ownership shouldn't be taken lightly. There are obligations associated with the right and liberty, namely that of original purposes and intent for gun ownership as an American citizen.

"We the people are the government"

The above quote isn't a principle standard I'd like to forget as an American citizen.

"Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders, than from the arguments of its opposers". William Penn

Less fervor and greater substance may be most appropriate. I'm guessing for whatever side you might be standing with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top