1. They have access to guns
2. They are angry at the world and if their raging hormones tell them to go for it they have no impulse control
3. The breakdown of family and community life leaves no checks and balances and a failure to have family supper at a properly set table with no media use!
4. Parents medicate their kids with brain altering substances to sedate and placate them rather then discipline them, spare the rod and instead of beating them change their brain with narcotics
5. Media violence prevalent in all medias brain washes them and they are cooked in a crockpot of indifference to people's suffering and death and combine this with our abortion mentality, euthanasia mentality and our war culture and addiction to media devices and what they do altars the proper functioning of their brains
6. The lack of an overtly religious home with religious morals
7. Forbidding daily prayer and Scripture reading in public school, monthly prayer meeting, the teaching of the 10 Commandments and the Golden rule. Kids who pray with each other are less likely to kill each other
ULTIMATELY OUR CULTURE IS STEEPED IN GODLESS VIOLENCE AND RHETORIC AND THE NEW MEDIA CLINCHES IT. MEDIA MOGULS WHO PROFIT OFF OF VIOLENT CONTENT SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TOO!
55 comments:
Interesting that most public high schools had gun clubs until fairly recent times, and not any incidents of this kind.
I think the decay and breakdown in society since the inauguration of Johnson's Great Society should be studied, as it might have been a substantial contributing factor: fatherless homes, encouraging illegitimate births, general loss of self-respect and respect for others.
I was with you, pretty much, up to #7.
Are you prepared from Muslim prayer and readings from Hindu Scripture in class? Or for a Baha'i teacher to instruct students in the proper way to pray in class? Is the Jewish kid sent out of the room while everyone else listens to the teacher read from Luke about the birth of the Messiah?
I believe that children who pray learn much, but that's the parents' job, not the school's.
Also, prayer meetings are allowed in many, many school districts, as student organized events.
"Forbidding daily prayer and scripture reading in public school."
OK---if both were to be restored to public schools, who would decide? If the students are 51% Catholic and 49% Protestant, do we go with the "Hail Mary"? Which Bible would we use? If you are in parts of New York City that are heavily Jewish, do we forego anything from the New Testament?
And apparently the shooter (sounds like he is Greek Orthodox) was a dancer at a recent church festival (probably Greek Orthodox) in the Houston area, according to one TV report.
Limiting access to a school to one or two entrances is impractical---many have multiple buildings with thousands of students. And the shootings happened even with a school resources officer or two present (forget if it was one or two).
Parental monitoring of their kid's computers would seem to be in order, though...
I went to public school from 1962 until ‘71 n Augusta, ga and we prayed The Pritest Lord’s Prayer every morning, said the Protestant grace before meals before we went to lunch and had the King James Bible read to us.
In junior high school we had a monthly chapel with Protestant hymns and Most baptist preachers all of which lasted an hour. We had a Protestant baccalaureate Service at school prot to graduation and prayer at every event. It was Protestant the predominant reliving of the south but far better than nothing today even if Muslim or Jewish!
Excuse damn auto correct worse than Muslims
"Are you prepared from Muslim prayer and readings from Hindu Scripture in class?"
Nope. Judaeo-Christian only. Even jake leg Protestant proselytism like we had in my school days would be better than nothing, still better than Muslim.
"Nope. Judaeo-Christian only. Even jake leg Protestant proselytism like we had in my school days would be better than nothing, still better than Muslim."
Which is why we have, thank God and our wise Founders,...
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I think it is the internet (sic) and data worlds that people have unrestricted access to. The are like choir boys in Lord of the Flies trying to create a world and value system on the electronic island but are not able to effectively imitate or build one. They do not have the experience or capability. In the on-line world all values have the same volume and are equal in importance. Actual accomplishment is an assertion and any fault completely cancels any positive attribute. So the child has the choice between the relatively small voice of adult values and the incredible din of his peers. There are more stars for self-indulgent than the self-controlled. It has nothing to do with guns or anything else external.
My father went to a public high school because there was no Catholic high school in town and it irked him they said the Protestant Version of the Lord's Prayer. He would not say it.
Islam is evil. End of discussion on that warped ideology masquerading as a religion. Wake me up if you can find of statement of Jesus Christ advocating we murder non believers.
Feminism killed society.
"I think it is the internet (sic) and data worlds that people have unrestricted access to. The are like choir boys in Lord of the Flies trying to create a world and value system on the electronic island but are not able to effectively imitate or build one."
rcg - A very good point. When I was first ordained a school principal (wise woman) noted that kids "these days" (30 years ago) have far, far more information and far, far less formation than in the past. The knew a lot, but had/have much reduced wisdom. Making good choices was, for them, extremely challenging.
Bee here:
Here's my two cents:
I think adolescence is a tough time for lots of kids, especially those that feel like outcasts - you know the type: doesn't fit in with anybody, rejected and oft times mocked and ridiculed by the "clique", not finding a place with any group - not the band kids, or smart kids, or sports kids, or fine arts kids, or anywhere, and treated by classmates like they have a communicable disease --- maybe even scorned by the girls, laughed at...
And so the outcast feels weak and powerless, and is in a lot of pain, and gets angrier and angrier over time, certain this agony will never end, and finally comes up with a way to get back at them once and for all - a gun. He'll show them. He'll show them who is weak and a jerk and powerless. With a gun in his hands, it will be them. They will be the weak powerless ones, hurt and afraid, running for their lives. And he'll be the one laughing then. And as for what will happen to him as a consequence...what does it matter? His life is hell already.
-------------------------------------------------
I ask myself, what did the social engineers who agitated to take Christianity out of our social institutions and minimize it's influence in our laws expect was going to happen? Did they really expect people would not kill without a Commandment not to do so? Are they really so naive that they believed everyone would be good just like that? It's as if they expected people would still act out of Christian values while denying Christianity. So what did they expect? This?
And once you remove the religious reason not to kill, what can you do to control killing except to take away all weapons? I guess that's the only way: when you remove the expectation of self-control, you have to implement draconian external controls. Notice the answer is to "take away guns," not, "let's help those who feel like social outcasts."
God bless.
Bee
rcg,
One problem - the so-called wise men (or woman) of the mainstream media perpetuate myths and lies on a daily basis. So you can no longer rely on them as a source of reliable information.
I find myself in agreement with Kavanaugh. In school, critical thinking (formation) has gone out the window. You either accept liberal orthodoxy as a fact, or you are marginalized. When I went to college over 40 years ago, I could not have told you the political party or views of any of my professors. They taught the course material, encouraged critical thinking, and kept their personal political views to themselves. Regrettably that is no longer the case today.
Which is why we have, thank God and our wise Founders,...
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
The Protestant teaching in public schools back then was not in consequence of any law made by Congress, nor of the establishment of any national or state sponsored church. Simply the exercise of freedom of speech by misguided if well-intentioned individual principals and teachers.
As a pious boy who sometimes knelt at the communion rail in my own Methodist church, where worship was more dignified than at many Catholic churches today, I personally found this jake leg stuff quite offensive, but I didn't scream inanities about what the constitution may or may say.
Pretty much all of the civilized world has angry kids, video games, violent movies, feminism , Ritalin and lots of exit doors.
However, the United States stands alone in these types of shootings.
And they are more prevalent in those states where guns are more plentiful and easier to get.
Look at the number of mass shootings that have happened at churches. It's ridiculous to blame shootings on a lack of prayer in schools.
Some very good comments here...thanks. Bee is right on, and I love the quote from MJK regarding information v formation.
The one thing about this latest shooting that seriously needs to be addressed is that both guns used belonged to the boy’s father. How on earth do we control that contributing factor?
Dan my post is on high school violence and disordered young people. I think the young person who shot blacks in a class in a Charleston Church was out of school.
TJM:
“One problem - the so-called wise men (or women) of the mainstream media perpetuate myths and lies on a daily basis”
Here’s another problem—the myth and lie perpetuated by the “nonmainstream media” (Trump TV?) on a daily basis that only the mainstream media perpetuate myths and lies on a daily basis and that they do not.
As you rightly say, critical thinking has gone out the window.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,wrong, wrong, and wrong. It's an epidemic that needs to be studied and approached objectively the same as other disease epidemics; without political, or moral, or any other type of bias. It needs to be studied forensically, epidemiological, and scientifically. That does not say religious or political concerns are unwarranted, it simply says a study cant be biased by them. It is a public health crisis. The worst way to find the root cause of this epidemic is to place a religious, or political, or ideological bias on the study.
Anonymous at 5:01 p.m.:
I agree that Bee makes some very good points about the importance of internal controls. However, it would be an error to conclude, consistent with the binary thinking so prevalent nowadays, that just because internal controls are desirable, we can dispense with external controls. And I also agree that Father Kavanaugh’s distinction between information and formation, with the latter’s emphasis on good judgment (wisdom), is telling and illuminating.
As to your question about the father, we can address the issue through reasonable regulation. Thus, we could require that gun owners keep their guns in a secure location when not in use (e.g., a locked gun safe or cabinet or other secure container, e.g., under the bed) and that these locations be inspected by local law enforcement to verify that this is the case. There could also be fines for failing to do so. Moreover, if it then turns out that someone else has accessed the gun and committed a crime because the gun owner had failed to act responsibly in this manner, then the gun owner would suffer an appropriate penalty too. Clearly, I am thinking out loud here and the appropriate details would have to be worked out during the process of drafting the legislation. For all I know, a model law to this effect may already have been drafted (I have not researched the point).
But don’t expect anything like this any time soon, if ever. Even if the Supreme Court would accept such regulation as constitutional under the Second Amendment, Wayne LaPierre would jump up and down and (disingenuously) scream (as usual) that the “Socialists” were trying to take everyone’s guns away.
Meanwhile, the band will play on and the massacres will continue . . . .
Mammon rules, okay?
Father, I know the post was on disordered young people and school violence. But there is a reason behind the collapse of the family and young people with no sense of direction and hope and values.
Providentially, we are given these words from the Book of James this morning:
"Where do the wars and where do the conflicts among you come from?
Is it not from your passions that make war within your members?
You covet but do not possess.
You kill and envy but you cannot obtain;
you fight and wage war.
You do not possess because you do not ask.
You ask but do not receive, because you ask wrongly,
to spend it on your passions.
Adulterers!"
That's it in the Scriptural nutshell.
Rene Girard has written extensively on the concept of mimetic rivalry (and the scapegoat mechanism that follows) and it makes, to me, an awful lot of sense.
A primer can be found here: https://violenceandreligion.com/mimetic-theory/
Gil Bailie, a Girard follower, has written "Violence Unveiled" which is a challenging and substantial book. I think Bailie may have been a speaker at the St. Joseph Parish, Macon, theology seminar some years back.
Anonymous 2,
LOL - Trump TV? Give me a break. The mainstream media destroyed itself by functioning as the PR Arm of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party thrives on 2 intrinsic evils: abortion and gay marriage. They are Mammon's shock troops and the sentient have caught on to it. Only academics like you continue to live in your alternate world of reality
It is likewise ridiculous to blame a recent rash of shootings on availability of guns.
Guns -- exactly like those used in the most recent event -- have been plentiful in our society for well over a century. But we haven't had these sorts of shootings in all that time. So obviously, something changed recently.
The problem with the discussion over "guns!" is first the inanity and second, the dishonesty. People will say, "oh, guns, terrible" -- but upon questioning, it's clear they have given no real thought to what they will do about guns. What will you do? And have you thought through how this will work in practice?
And then there is the dishonesty. This boy used a shotgun and a pistol. The gun-grabbers have fallen silent this time, because they don't dare advocate confiscation of either. They prefer to talk about scary-looking guns, hoping folks don't realize that a so-called "assault weapon" is not significantly different, in actual effect, from lots of ordinary hunting rifles. So either you pass a law that targets cosmetic features -- and thus is obviously absurd -- or else you pass a law that targets a vast swath of weapons affecting huge numbers of Americans. Very rarely do you get an honest advocate of gun control who will say, outright, "yes, I favor taking away, or otherwise tightly limiting, everyone's access to very ordinary sorts of guns."
I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying that there's very little to take seriously about this so-called "national conversation" that gun-grabbers say they want.
States with higher gun ownership have higher rates of gun deaths.
Yes, there is a correlation.
It is simply dishonest to say that those who advocate for greater gun control laws "have given no real thought to what they will do about guns."
Calling people who advocate for more effective gun control legislation "gun grabbers" is equally dishonest.
Positing an Either-Or solution ("either you pass a law that targets cosmetic features -- and thus is obviously absurd -- or else you pass a law that targets a vast swath of weapons affecting huge numbers of Americans") is also dishonest. It is a caricature. Caricatures can be very effective in fomenting fear and anger, but those are hardly needed if we want to make our communities safer.
National conversation cannot be built on the out-and-out hype that too many people insist on using. If every advocate of greater control is a "gun-grabber" and every advocate of less control is a "gun-owning fanatic," then where's the room for the dialogue.
Father Fox,
Amen!
Yes we always have had disturbed, angry teenage boys and guns and broken and/or dysfunctional families. What is different today?
1. 24 hour news stations that turn massacres and murderers into television celebrities
2. All medias, new and old, Radicalizing broken kids and showing them in their powerlessness how to have power and notoriety
3. Grotesque violence found on all medias,
TJM:
“[Y]ou continue to live in your alternate world of reality.” Precisely!
I commend to everyone here Rex Tillerson’s Commencement speech at VMI last Wednesday. The first few minutes of the speech are about our global context but the remainder (from about 7:30) addresses the subjects of truth, ethics, integrity, leadership, and character. The (mainstream) media are making much of Tillerson’s comments about truth and facts (seeing them as a veiled swipe at Trump et. al.). However, the entire speech is excellent and inspirational. Tillerson knocks it out of the park.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRtsnJhHEfk
What ELSE is different today?
1. Wealth
2. Divorce/Remarriage
3. Wealth
4. Easier access to guns
5. Wealth
6. Less geographic stability - people move far more frequently and at greater distances, resulting in less sense of community and responsibility
7. Wealth
8. Loss of respect, at times appropriate, for government/laws. In America we were lied to for a decade or more about Vietnam.
9. Wealth
10. Television in general (except for JEOPARDY and Antiques Roadshow and the British comedies especially "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister.")
And TJM, before you go off on another pointless anti-Socialism rant, please recall the words of Sacred Scripture: "The love of money is the root of all evil."
No one loves money more than a Socialist.
Anyway...
I think there is much more "mental illness" now than there was in even the recent past. My theory is that has something to do with the advent of radical individualism, which results in dissociation from reality and lack of grounding in community. Social media, of course, has exacerbated that situation, but such was already the case in the wake of the 1960's movements, which tend to manifest in the broad sense in identity politics and a national cohesion rooted mainly in common government rather than in common purpose.
Such a situation is bound to result in violent outbursts of individualistic demonstration, which we see in any number of ways to include mass shootings.
Marc - I've often referred to "Habits of the Heart" by Robert Bellah et al, which is subtitled, "Individualism and Commitment in American Life."
From one summary: " Bellah relies heavily on the expertise of French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville who penned one of the most provocative sociological analysis of culture. Tocqueville argued that individualism would, if unchecked, lead to a new form of despotism: the idea of a single national leader holding absolute power. While Bellah’s book does not conclude that America is in immediate danger of this, he does indicate that the long-range prognosis is not positive. One rationale, the author suggests, is due to the damage done to even the starkest progenitors of American civil religion by the inescapable effects of an individualistic ideology. Those who cease their pursuit of success in favor of attending the common good are often misunderstood. As such, public life is seriously compromised by the inadequacies of commonly-held theories surrounding self-expression and moral imperatives."
Fr Kavanaugh --
Calling me dishonest three times is not actually a rebuttal to my arguments, it is name calling. Unrebutted arguments win.
And people who want grab guns are aptly called gun grabbers, even if you don't like it.
Martin, dishonesty is dishonesty, even if you don't like it.
When you say that people who disagree with you are not thoughtful, simply because they disagree with you, you fall into the logical fallacy of an Ad Hominem argument. "Because you disagree with me, you are not thoughtful" or "If you really thought about it, you'd agree with me" or "You would agree with me if you thought about it." I and many, many of those who favor more effective gun control legislation have thought about it.
All of those assertions fail from within.
When you say that people who want more effective gun control legislation are "gun grabbers," you fall into the logical fallacy of the Straw Man argument. You argue against a phony, weak, or ridiculous position (people who want more effective gun control legislation are out to grab every gun) that you have created, and then proceed to easily knock it down.
Very convenient, but that's another fail.
You go on to employ another fallacy, the False Dichotomy. You reduce an argument down to only two options (reasonable gun control legislation OR an unbearable burden on HUGE numbers of Americans) despite the fact that there may be many more (and, possibly,far better possibilities) to choose from. '
Before you fret about the terrible burdens a gun owner may face, talk to the families of the dead from Las Vegas, Orlando, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Sutherland Springs, Stoneman Douglas, Columbine and find out about the burdens they bear for the rest of their lives.
Fail Number Three.
Father Kavanaugh:
When you say that people who disagree with you are not thoughtful, simply because they disagree with you, you fall into the logical fallacy of an Ad Hominem argument.
Yeah. I never said that. Quote me. Or else it is you who is lying.
When you say that people who want more effective gun control legislation are "gun grabbers...
I didn't say that either. Again, quote me.
You reduce an argument down to only two options (reasonable gun control legislation OR an unbearable burden on HUGE numbers of Americans) despite the fact that there may be many more (and, possibly,far better possibilities) to choose from.
Nope, sorry, apparently you lack reading comprehension. I was not characterizing the entire issue, but I was describing a specific phenomenon. Again, I notice you accuse me of lying, three times, but how many times do you quote me? Zero.
Father, either substantiate your calumnies against me -- that is, actually quote my words -- or else apologize for falsely accusing me of lying, or, if you refuse to do either, then I ask you to cease speaking to me, as I will not respond to you.
Frmjk, you need to substantiate your comments with factual quotes or apologize to Fr. Martin for misreading his comments. Thanks.
Allan, my comments are substantiated by what Martin has posted. Thanks.
Martin said, "People will say, "oh, guns, terrible" -- but upon questioning, it's clear they have given no real thought to what they will do about guns."
Yes, we are thoughtful. We have given real thought to what we will do about guns. Martin was dishonest.
Martin said, "So either you pass a law that targets cosmetic features -- and thus is obviously absurd -- or else you pass a law that targets a vast swath of weapons affecting huge numbers of Americans."
This is a false dichotomy. Either "this" or "that."
No, it's not either pass a law that targets cosmetic features or pass a law that huge number will find burdensome. There are many other options. Martin, again, was dishonest.
Martin said, "The gun-grabbers have fallen silent this time, because they don't dare advocate confiscation of either."
Those of us who advocate for more effective gun control legislation are not "gun grabbers" seeking confiscation of guns. Martin was dishonest.
I will continue to speak to you, Martin. You are free to respond or not.
Allan, and let me commend you for your chivalrous defense of one of your fellow priests who you think has been falsely accused.
That being said, may I suggest that your selectivity in this regard makes that defense rather hollow.
Father Kavanaugh:
I'm sad to say this, but you have demonstrated your dishonesty before all to see.
For example, you accuse me of the following:
When you say that people who disagree with you are not thoughtful, simply because they disagree with you, you fall into the logical fallacy of an Ad Hominem argument.
When I challenge you to substantiate this accusation, you respond as follows:
Martin said, "People will say, "oh, guns, terrible" -- but upon questioning, it's clear they have given no real thought to what they will do about guns."
Yes, we are thoughtful. We have given real thought to what we will do about guns. Martin was dishonest.
Now, please take note: nowhere do you substantiate the calumny, as follows: "...are not thoughtful, simply because they disagree with you..."
Get that? I never claimed anyone is thoughtless "simply because they disagree" with me. I assert they are thoughtless because they are thoughtless. Get that?
You failed to substantiate the claim that I asserted anyone is not thoughtful simply because they disagree with me. Those highlighted six words are the false claim you attribute to me. You can't substantiate this claim because it isn't what I said. You fail to quote me saying that. To keep it simple, I contend that lots of advocates of gun control are simply thoughtless. Not "simply because they disagree" with me; but simply because they are. How do I know? Because it is what I have observed.
I never said you were not thoughtful -- although your breezy way of accusing me of lying, without evidence, lends support for the thesis. If you took my general account of the situation as talking about you personally, then that is your issue.
So that example will do to show that the one being dishonest is you (although the other two accusations against me follow the same pattern; but I'm not going to take time to go through them). Perhaps you did it unwittingly. One way or the other, you have falsely accused me, and I expect an apology.
But if you can't bring yourself to do so, then I really don't have much more to say to you.
Fr Fox
Join the club. MJK may not be personally dishonest, but he is intellectually dishonest, which is why I am resolved to have no further dealings with him when he posts over his own name. However, anonymous and pseudonymous comments which may or may not come from the same source are fair game and I continue to take great pleasure in excoriating them.
Martin, it is not surprising that you want to evade your responsibility for your own dishonesty by turning this into an attack on me. Sad, but not surprising.
You assertion, and I quote, "People will say, "oh, guns, terrible" -- but upon questioning, it's clear they have given no real thought to what they will do about guns." is not true. "People" who want more effective gun control legislation have, indeed, thought about the issue.
No, you never said "Fr. Kavanaugh is not thoughtful." You will note, since we are being oh-so careful about quotations, that I never posted the words "Martin says that I, Fr. Kavanaugh, have not given any real thought to the matter." So...
You caricature of those who want more effective gun control legislation as "gun-grabbers" is also untrue. I am one of those who wants more effective gun control legislation, yet I readily acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I do so also aware that EVERY SINGLE Constitutional right is circumscribed by legislation and/or regulation for the benefit of the Common Good. We are not "gun-grabbers."
There will be no apology from me. You assertions are not truthful; they are caricatures of those who want more effective gun control legislation. As with most, if not all caricatures, they are not entirely honest.
Father Kavanaugh:
As I said, it is very sad that you choose to lie about me. That you are lying is manifest to all, becausecyou clained I said -- and I now quote you:
When you say that people who disagree with you are not thoughtful, simply because they disagree with you, you fall into the logical fallacy of an Ad Hominem argument.
This statement, with emphasis on the words I bolded, are not true. I did not say any such thing. I have challenged you three times to quote me saying what you claim I said, and you have not produced any quote. When you claim someone said something he did not say, that is a lie.
You lied about me.
So your decision not to apologize for a lie that everyone can see is sad, and as a result, I will not engage you further.
Best wishes.
Mike is probably the worst person I’ve ever encountered in my life.
And I’m a criminal defense attorney.
No, Fr. Fox, you will not get an apology from MJK—no one to my knowledge ever has...
This would include posters here over many years and also parishioners, both of which I have been. He is intelligent and cares about many social and evangelical issues (not in and of itself a bad thing, of course), and “seems” open to dialogue as long as one doesn’t disagree with him. But with a likewise committed defender of an opposite opinion, he will attack in a way classic to the personality who struggles with isolation issues. I have prayed for him for many years and will continue to do so. And I hope he will pray for me...
God bless
Martin, you claimed that people who advocate for stricter gun control legislation are not thoughtful. That is a false claim.
You caricature those who advocate for stricter gun control legislation as "gun grabbers." That is not true.
You assert that those who advocate for stricter gun control legislation want either controls on "cosmetic" matters OR laws that many would find burdensome. We do not want merely restrictions on "cosmetic" matters. Would many find stricter gun control legislation burdensome? I suspect they would, but we restrict every single Constitutional right with laws and/or regulations that some people find burdensome, but we do it anyway.
You pretend to take the "high road," yet you continue to maintain your dishonest assertions.
Best wishes.
Before this thread dies a natural death as they all do, I want to document the two clear lies Father Kavanaugh has uttered against me. I have given up hope, for the time being, of engaging with him in an honest fashion, as he has both failed to substantiate his accusations against me, and he has failed to apologize for accusing me of lying without being able to substantiate the charge. But at some point, it might be useful to have this information in the thread.
I explained as clearly as I can the first lie, at May 23, 10:11 am, above. Here is the second:
When you say that people who want more effective gun control legislation are "gun grabbers...
I never said this. Note the bolded words which make this statement false. I referred to "gun grabbers" without defining my term. Father Kavanaugh does not get to calumniate me when his accusation relies on his own definition of the term I used. I didn't think a definition was necessary, since both the words "gun" and "grab" are pretty clear. But since it seems to be needed, "gun grabbers" are those who want to grab guns. Whether all those who "want more effective gun control legislation" are "gun grabbers" is undetermined.
It may be that no one but Father Kavanaugh and our genial host will read this, but it's on the record, should that prove to be necessary down the road.
Dear Father Fox and Father Kavanaugh,
I am still reading the thread. I did not have time to comment before.
By no means am I trying to have the last word and indeed one or both of you may be minded to reply.
I have once again read though the exchanges between you, and on my reading you are both right. Father Fox, it is true that you did not use the precise words that Father Kavanaugh ascribed to you. But Father Kavanaugh’s rendition of what you wrote does not seem to be an unreasonable paraphrase. He seems to have read the language in question in the context of your whole comment and to have drawn out the natural necessary implications of what you wrote. Now, this said, Father Kavanaugh’s understanding may well not have been what you intended, in which case what we have is a misunderstanding and a miscommunication between you.
Anyway, what the exchange underscores to me yet again is how passionately people on both sides often feel about the issue of gun violence and what to do about it. I have to believe that once we rid the conversation of ideology, the influence of money, and heated rhetoric (including language that reflects mutual demonization), people of goodwill and good faith on both sides should be able to come together arrive at reasonable solutions in light of the best information available. Sadly, however, I am not holding my breath because ridding the conversation of those unhealthy elements is a huge challenge in the current political climate. And in this regard the debate over what to do about gun violence is just one instance among many such issues that seem so intractable.
And these issues will remain intractable unless and until we find our way back to one another and take back the political conversation and the Republic it should sustain.
I was just presenting a CLE last week on the topic of the Fourth Amendment, and it was again dawned on me how most people care very little about the erosion and diminishment of the perfectly clear language of the Fourth Amendment whilst simultaneously holding to a very strict interpretation of the wholly ambiguous language of the Second Amendment.
As far as I'm concerned, the Fourth Amendment is of much greater practical significance and of much greater significance when it comes to our fundamental liberty rights.
Then again, I don't "get" the whole gun rights thing in the slightest.
Anonymous2:
Thank you for your comment. I noticed this paragraph in particular:
I have once again read though the exchanges between you, and on my reading you are both right. Father Fox, it is true that you did not use the precise words that Father Kavanaugh ascribed to you. But Father Kavanaugh’s rendition of what you wrote does not seem to be an unreasonable paraphrase. He seems to have read the language in question in the context of your whole comment and to have drawn out the natural necessary implications of what you wrote. Now, this said, Father Kavanaugh’s understanding may well not have been what you intended, in which case what we have is a misunderstanding and a miscommunication between you.
That is a reasonable observation -- although I want to point out that when someone makes a damaging accusation, then getting the facts right matters a great deal more. So I don't agree that it is only a matter of lacking "precise words." Even so, that still leaves Father K. in difficulty: because it seems to me pretty outrageous to accuse someone of "dishonesty" on the basis of an uncertain reading. Far better would be to ask a question: "what did you mean when you said...?"
I respond very favorably to questions asked in good faith. But when someone impugns my good name, as Father K. did, then I respond as I did, insisting that he substantiate it.
Now, if you want ask the question Father K. chose not to ask, that's fine, have at it.
Yes, you caricature those who advocate for stricter gun control legislation as "gun grabbers."
Here are your words: "And then there is the dishonesty. This boy used a shotgun and a pistol. The gun-grabbers have fallen silent this time, because they don't dare advocate confiscation of either."
"Gun-Grabbers" is your term. I didn't make it up. These are the words you used.
Yes, you caricature those who want more effective gun control as unthinking.
Here are your words: "People will say, "oh, guns, terrible" -- but upon questioning, it's clear they have given no real thought to what they will do about guns."
"...they have given no real thought to..." are your words. I didn't make them up.
I, too, am glad the information is on this thread.
"Even so, that still leaves Father K. in difficulty: because it seems to me pretty outrageous to accuse someone of "dishonesty" on the basis of an uncertain reading.
It wasn't based on an "uncertain" reading.
Marc:
I too have struggled to “get” the “gun rights thing.” Although clearly more is going on, and while we need to exercise caution against unwarranted reductionist explanation, I have found Darcia Narvaez’s “triune ethics” theory quite helpful on this and many other issues (the theory identifies a safety or security ethic, an engagement ethic, and an imagination ethic rooted in different neurobiological capacities and unconscious emotional systems shaped by experience). Here is a short 2012 piece in which Darcia gives a useful overview of her theory, with specific reference to its application in helping to explain violence.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201204/the-psychology-killing-and-nonkilling
Darcia’s theory is actually more involved than is presented here—for example the imagination ethic combines with the safety ethic or the engagement ethic to produce, for example, vicious imagination in the psychopath or mindful morality in the great religions respectively). But, as I said, this is a good introduction. Moreover, for me, the theory is compatible with and complementary to, other theories such as Girard’s theory of sibling rivalry and mimetic desire, theories such as Fukuyama’s neo-Hegelian theory emphasizing the “thymotic" part of the “soul” (based on Plato’s own tripartite division of the soul into reason, thymos, and appetite), and the concept of Original Sin. As such, I have also tried to incorporate Darcia's theory into my own thinking and writing.
I would be interested to know what you (and other readers) think about this triune ethics theory. Truth be told, you and many others here are probably more learned on this subject than I am.
P.S. By the way, I am glad you are doing the CLE on the Fourth Amendment.
PP.S. I need to amend my reference to Fukuyama. Instead of “Fukuyama’s neo-Hegelian theory emphasizing” it should read “Fukuyama’s (usually seriously misunderstood) neo-Hegelian “End of History” thesis emphasizing”. That makes more sense.
Today's normal is a persons right to stop another life before birth as personal choice, to end someones life through euthanasia, or to end ones own through assisted suicide, or through a death penalty. Today's normal is cloning a desired life, or freezing it for a future use.It also is reassigning a life given, as promoted through today's gender decisions. If there is no respect for life at any of these angles, and life or death decisions are purely personal choice: why is anyone shocked by people who make the same choices in a schoolyard, or shopping center? If the kids (even as they turn into adulthood) are disordered in their thinking, maybe someone should take a look at what they are being taught?
Post a Comment