• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Here is one solution. Make a new amendment

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Campus Access (Public)
Campuses should have single ingress and egress points to the extent that is consistent with
this level’s criteria of minimal cost. (If cost is significant then it should be considered later in
the hardening process).
Interior access should be limited by co-locating Attendance, Guidance, Main Office and
other public business offices. (many schools have these functions spread throughout
multiple locations on campus)
Clear signs should direct visitors to appropriate entry points. All entry/exit doors should
indicate a closed campus and direct visitors to report to the front office.
Install a door alert or notification system to the main entry for visitor control. Non-essential
visitors should be limited and when allowing visitors they should be required to show
positive identification, state their purpose for entering the school, be issued a visitor badge
and, when appropriate, have a staff escort during the entire time the person is inside the
school.
Visitor management. All campus perimeter ingress and egress points shall be staffed when
opened for student arrival and dismissal.
Each school should have a written campus access policy that is distributed to all personnel.
Staff members should be trained to challenge, if appropriate, or report anyone unauthorized
to be on campus or any vehicle not parked in an authorized area.

Target Hardening Appendix B.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/MSDHS/CommissionReport.pdf
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Or you could just ban assault weapons

Won't work. You can fairly easy make one about of certain non-assault weapons.
Further you can build a simple SMG with 3D printing and some fairly simple metal work. Then you have to ban the bullets of non-assault weapons.
BTW what is an assault weapon?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Won't work. You can fairly easy make one about of certain non-assault weapons.
Further you can build a simple SMG with 3D printing and some fairly simple metal work. Then you have to ban the bullets of non-assault weapons.
BTW what is an assault weapon?

Whatever you define as an "assault weapon" it'll be easy for the manufactures to work around it. Just take a semi-automatic pistol and add a military style stock and barrel to it.

That's why they call the AR-15 an assault style weapon. Banning high capacity magazines would be more effective except in this case the assailant had plenty of time to reload.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
90


Get them young and train them well and you will have good humans with a gun. What could go wrong?
How will the bullies and the bullied work out their relationships once fully armed?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
How will the bullies and the bullied work out their relationships once fully armed?

Yeah, it wouldn't work. But it would be one big experiment in cooperative behaviour versus alpha male behavior. BTW I thought humans were cooperative and that was linked to objective morality? How is going with the link I asked for?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Yeah, it wouldn't work. But it would be one big experiment in cooperative behaviour versus alpha male behavior. BTW I thought humans were cooperative and that was linked to objective morality?
You are making the mistake of thinking cooperation is applicable to all cases. Just look at how army units in one uniform cooperate with each other against other military forces in different uniforms. Cooperation is set by the advantages of the tribe the individual identifies with. One tribe has a cooperative interest to destroy another tribe, usually for resources.

Lions will work together to take down a wildabeest and you won't see hyenas working with the lions to do this. But the hyenas will wait and eat from the remains of the lions. So you see one species cooperating for food and another that functions individually as a scavenger. The lions didn't;t have a meeting and decide to cooperate. Over time lions that cooperated had better chances to kill and thus there was more availability of food to survive. The hyenas, well they adapted to the cooperative behavior of lions and survived because there was no pressure for them to cooperate.

How is going with the link I asked for?
I thought you'd do your own homework. This point is well observed and a mainstay of biology and behavior. The morals of cooperation are not just a reasoned abstraction in behavior, but a trait that has functional benefits and advantages.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...


I thought you'd do your own homework. This point is well observed and a mainstay of biology and behavior. The morals of cooperation are not just a reasoned abstraction in behavior, but a trait that has functional benefits and advantages.

Oh no. You made the positive claim. Cough up.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
This is no more controversial than evolution. It's a well established phenomenon.

Morality and Evolutionary Biology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This one is a good outline

The Biological Basis of Morality

The first one is not conclusive as it also contains a section that claim it is not the case that there is in fact moral truths as objective.

The second is a single biologist writing in an online paper, which is not a scientific standard. There is no peer-review or anything. It doesn't count as science.

So to sum up - you give a philosophy site, which states there are pros and cons and a non-scientific paper as per the standard of science.

Well, you failed. Want to try again?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The first one is not conclusive as it also contains a section that claim it is not the case that there is in fact moral truths as objective.

The second is a single biologist writing in an online paper, which is not a scientific standard. There is no peer-review or anything. It doesn't count as science.

So to sum up - you give a philosophy site, which states there are pros and cons and a non-scientific paper as per the standard of science.

Well, you failed. Want to try again?
Well I gave you two sources that informs the basis of my use of objective, biological morals. If this isn't good enough for you I'm not sure what to tell you. This is an informal debate forum, and we offer our views on issues. I'm not trying to sell you on some implausible religious truth, it's an accepted biological principle. The links I provided represent expert understanding of how morals and biological evolution are linked. As I've noted these are base morals, not abstract morals like humans use.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Well I gave you two sources that informs the basis of my use of objective, biological morals. If this isn't good enough for you I'm not sure what to tell you. This is an informal debate forum, and we offer our views on issues. I'm not trying to sell you on some implausible religious truth, it's an accepted biological principle. The links I provided represent expert understanding of how morals and biological evolution are linked. As I've noted these are base morals, not abstract morals like humans use.

It is not an acceptable principle. You are confusing 3 different aspects of ethics. Biology can solve one, but not the other 2.
Just read the philosophy link you gave. And you will see.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Perhaps a new amendment - only allow those with an IQ over a certain value are allowed to purchase guns, and this would be extended to voting too. :oops:
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Perhaps a new amendment - only allow those with an IQ over a certain value are allowed to purchase guns, and this would be extended to voting too. :oops:

IQ is not in the end objective like gravity. You end up with people trying to adapt it to fit what suits their value system.
 
Top