"We spend over $10,000 per student every year for public education."
And this doesn't count the GENEROUS bond initiatives Californians have voted for schools ever year. Add that in and you'll find the numbers absolutely astronomical. Further, the total doesn't include capitol expenses either. Include just the capitol expenses and POOF, we're spending about $30k per student.
" Not only can charter schools cherry pick their kids but at least my state the people backing them have already been indicted for corruption by letting some of the richer ones fudge their test scores."
This isn't entirely accurate but I understand your bias.
There are two problems with public schools (more in fact, but lets look at these two): Teachers and students. It is virtually impossible in most large cities to get rid of bad teachers *OR* disruptive students. With that, I welcome charter schools. If a student is disruptive or violates code, they are out. If a teacher doesn't perform well, they will be replaced. These qualities ATTRACT parents who are involved and want their children to do well in school so they will bend over backwards to get them out of the public school system leaving the parents who either cant or wont care.
If we want that feedback loop to change, we've got a LOT of work ahead of us. Work that not only includes defeating some of the strongest political unions in the nation, changing the notion that having children out of wedlock is acceptable and shameless (yes, we need SHAME -- its an important social tool in any civilization -- think we don't use shame STILL? Just look at the Duck Dynasty claptrap recently), and we need to FORCE parents to be involved at some level with schools (yes -- force. The school my children attend require 40 hours of volunteer work each year -- otherwise your child goes back in to the lottery).
It's a statistical truth that just having a FATHER in the house reduces the risk of living in poverty. Further, *NOT* having a child before your 20s improves a MOTHERS changes of not living in poverty (and by extension, her child(ren)). The statistics are available -- look them up. They're easy to find. Easier to ignore.
My "friends" are family and friends so close to be considered family. Thats around 30 people with a few "odd ball" old friends who "found" me. That tops off around 40 folks in my "friends".
I only see about 15 in my feed (by config). So I WANT to know that little-princess 4 months old just learned to walk in THAT group.
What I don't understand is the desire to have 100, 200, 2000 friends. That is just crazy and leads to the signal overload you describe above.
"Newtown took place in the heart of gun-nut country, not the inner cities."
And that was 28 deaths, right? Add that total to all of Conn for 2012 and what do you have?
What was Chicago? Over 500? That's a Newtown every two weeks, isn't it?
You can pick an anomaly and base your reactions off it and the passions they invoke -- and not solve the problem. Or you can look at the over all stats and WHERE the problems are and have a simpler smaller target to address. Then MAYBE you can reduce those numbers dramatically.
Ok. Lets do this. Lets require all guns to be worn (unconcealed) by all owners at all times so they can display their current registration sticker -- just like motor vehicles.
"The ban on guns in society at large seems to work pretty well here in europe."
Europe isn't the US. Different cultures, different history with tyrants and oppressive governments and different solutions to those "histories". You aren't going to get a "ban" on guns. Where we have managed 'effective' bans, it's been ineffective.
Likewise, Sharia law may work for some cultures -- it wouldn't work very well in Europe I'm sure.
"Gun free zones and banning guns are two completely different things, and it does not follow that since the former doesn't work the latter won't either."
You are correct -- that it doesn't follow that if one doesn't work the other one will.
However, it does little good to make arguments that have no reasonable exception of having their premise realized:
"...but the point is that had it not been possible to simply buy them in the first place it seems unlikely that a child would be able to obtain one illegally just as easily."
(1) You can't reasonably expect to make it impossible to buy guns. (2) If such 'magical' changes occur that MIGHT make this possible, there are too many guns in the 'wild'. They're effectively the there indefinitely. (3) You can't reasonably expect our culture to confiscate guns. We don't live in a dictatorship -- or even a 'democracy'. We live in a republic. Good luck changing the Constitution on this one...
So, instead of pining for some assumed utopia where everyone things the way you do, how about we try and address the problem within the fabric of our culture?
I'm unsure of the national average -- but in CA, about 70% of criminals re-offend within 3 years of their release. Look it up.
What does that have with assuming criminals are "all in"? Nothing, directly -- but assuming that criminals will not respect laws is certainly not "simple minded". If they used a gun before -- there is a pretty good (and not simple minded) expectation they will do so again. Regardless of what the law is.
Nice try, but very poor analogy. A better one would have been to swap "gun" for "knife" or some other weapon.
But lets think in through. Banning "murder" with "the force of law" HAS proven to be effective. But not "guns". Why? Oh yeah -- they aren't the same thing. Gun != Murder so it should not be surprising that the results are different. Go figure.
Really? I don't think you understand what that means.
"'Begging the Question': How effective have those bans been for schools? and
If so, why hasn't it with schools? In those statements you are assuming it hasn't. What do you base this on?
Oh... maybe the number of school shootings since the 1990s "gun free school zone" ban? Since I'm not writing a paper or limiting my discussion to formal logic or syllogisms, I did make the assumption of a somewhat informed audience.
Argument from Personal Incredulity,
Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely.
" "Attrition" just isn't an option." of course it is; whoever (sic) we could just confiscate them.
That is an unreasonable suggestion. You could not "just" confiscate them. We don't live in a dictatorship -- nor would you be able to find even the bulk of them should such an impossible suggestion magically become possible. Again, I'm not writing a paper and I did make assumptions of a somewhat informed audience. I'm not sure where you live, but if it's in the US, then it's you who is being incredulous.
"guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. " indefinitely is a long time.
Yes it is. Again, we've got a fairly large number of guns from pre-civil war that are still very functional.
I don't think you know how to have a conversation.
Interesting statement. I don't think you know how to think reasonably. See my reference above regarding your thoughts on "just" confiscating guns.
"Find another solution." Why because you can't make an argument?
(cough) ad hominem (/cough)
becasue it doesn't feel right?
Because attempts to control gun violence have been ineffectual. You can cite a few cases where gun violence as gone down -- but there's far more where it has not. Look at Chicago or DC. They have what be the most restrictive gun laws in the nation -- and they appear to not be working. So, yes -- Find another solution. Because doing the same thing that's not working is just crazy talk.
You, and in fact pretty much everyone, has yet to put forth a logical argument to support that, to anything in you post.
And you are engaging in unreasonable thinking, in my opinion.
Ban the sale or gifting of any fire arms. Ban the sale of ammunition.
And some examples of your unreasonable thinking. That will not work in our culture. You will not get a Constitutional amendment passed to change/repeal the second amendment.
If something is POSSIBLE, but UNREASONABLE -- it does NOT qualify as a counter argument. I'm uninterested in effectively having a MATH discussion with you (which is what this would be if we were to limit ourselves to a discussion of formal logic and syllogisms). UNREASONABLE isn't countered by POSSIBLE in the real world. Look at your chances of winning the lottery for a real world example.
"It is possible to make background checks and document weapon sales." This is already done. It's been ineffectual.
"It is possible to impose limitations on the purchaser of such weapons to mitigate the risk their tools pose to the community." This is already done. It's been ineffectual.
"It is possible to limit the characteristics of privately-owned weapons." This is already done. It's been ineffectual.
"Rational people can understand that there are multiple, legitimate perspectives on the question, and that allows a dialog capable of finding balance among the opposing views. " Agreed. However, when what has been done in the past has been ineffectual, how does 'doubling down' on an ineffective policy help move the ball?
Further, we cannot and should not legislate from passion. To pass laws after a "tragedy" inflames the passions of people only serves to enact extreme laws.
Maybe -- just MAYBE we can talk about ANOTHER approach.
Ok. Lets have that conversation. I notice you don't mention schools. How effective have those bans been for schools?
Many of the mass shootings were in "gun free zones". Ok, lets suppose there was no 'force of law' behind that. Would that have made a difference if there were? If so, why hasn't it with schools?
Banning guns will not work in our culture. Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. "Attrition" just isn't an option.
It's bad enough we have private industry in charge of much of our private information. At least THEY can be held accountable and sued or fined out of existence or at least suffer PR so bad that their business fails.
When the Government is in charge, what are you going to do? Sue them? Great. You win money from every tax payer and the problem wont get fixed -- it will just be more expensive to run -- for every tax payer.
"Unfortunately, the USA has a broken electoral system that forces politics to a two-party system."
No we don't. It works exactly as designed. The problem isn't the system, it's the voters. Maybe I'm an elitist, but I don't believe everyone SHOULD vote -- and on issues of which I'm ignorant, I DON'T vote.
If people can't take the initiative to REGISTER to vote and GO to their polling place (out of town or disabled as exceptions), people SHOULDN'T be encouraged to vote by "automatic registration" or "mandatory" absentee ballots. It's obvious (at least to me) that it's not that important to them.
I'm sorry you have a reading comprehension problem, but what does that have to do with the government being unable to manage money and providing healthcare as it is and then GIVING it ALL of health care. If cost is a concern, what's the flipping reasoning? If "money paid" vs. "out of pocket" is a concern than putting ANYTHING in the governments hands is bad.
"What would help folks is a national health care system. The US spends more tax dollars on health care than any of the top 10 nations that have actual national health care systems... while not providing any healthcare"
Unbelievable. I really can't understand this reasoning. You ADMIT that the government is incompetent in how they spend the public's money ('while not providing any healthcare") while wanting to take a well working health care system and dismantle it and give it to the government to control! This is just insane thinking.
There were far simpler and cheaper solutions than this monster. Pre-existing conditions? Maybe move them to Medicare coverage for JUST those conditions.
("The US is ranked below most western nations on patient outcomes even though people in the US pay dramatically more for hospital care and procedures (I'm talking what is paid, not what is paid out of pocket)."
Toss up some citations and we can discuss. You've already admitted that the government won't be able to improve money spent...
This type of crazy talk only serves to polarize the system even more and should not be encouraged.
It's BUILT IN to the system to say "Hey, I don't want this, but if you take this out, I'll go along with it" or "I want this, but I'll take it out if you add that".
This is called COMPROMISE. Our entire system is based on it! If you want to call in crazy hyperbolic language to make a point, great. The problem is that it's become so prevalent that it's HURTING our ability to govern ourselves.
"The people elected Obama when a central part of his campaign was 'Obamacare'. They re-elected him. If congress want to repeal Obamacare then they could, and should, try and pass a bill doing so; "
Bad logic and shows you misunderstand how the system works.
The people elected Nixon. Twice. While Vietnam was a central part. Congress scuttled that by cutting off funding.
You need to remember that the HOUSE members are REPRESENTING the will of THEIR constituents. Now they are supposed to find some type of compromise. That's the way the system works.
The house submitted, what? Three different versions? Each closer to what the Senate wants? How far has the Senate moved?
The system was DESIGNED to work on compromise. Hell, our founding documents are products of compromise! (glaring example: 3/5s compromise).
I don't have mixed feelings and I had a number of "hardships" that people don't necessarily have:
1) I was homeless for a little over 1 semester. I would get a hotel room ($25 a night) once or twice during the week for good sleep and shower and lived out of a locker. 2) I learned to "like" top ramen. 3) I had zero family support
I took longer to get my 4-year, but I also finished with zero debt. There are solutions and if we don't have the "comfy" luck of others, that doesn't give us an excuse to fail or make poor choices.
Slashdot Mirror
"We spend over $10,000 per student every year for public education."
And this doesn't count the GENEROUS bond initiatives Californians have voted for schools ever year. Add that in and you'll find the numbers absolutely astronomical. Further, the total doesn't include capitol expenses either. Include just the capitol expenses and POOF, we're spending about $30k per student.
" Not only can charter schools cherry pick their kids but at least my state the people backing them have already been indicted for corruption by letting some of the richer ones fudge their test scores."
This isn't entirely accurate but I understand your bias.
There are two problems with public schools (more in fact, but lets look at these two): Teachers and students. It is virtually impossible in most large cities to get rid of bad teachers *OR* disruptive students. With that, I welcome charter schools. If a student is disruptive or violates code, they are out. If a teacher doesn't perform well, they will be replaced. These qualities ATTRACT parents who are involved and want their children to do well in school so they will bend over backwards to get them out of the public school system leaving the parents who either cant or wont care.
If we want that feedback loop to change, we've got a LOT of work ahead of us. Work that not only includes defeating some of the strongest political unions in the nation, changing the notion that having children out of wedlock is acceptable and shameless (yes, we need SHAME -- its an important social tool in any civilization -- think we don't use shame STILL? Just look at the Duck Dynasty claptrap recently), and we need to FORCE parents to be involved at some level with schools (yes -- force. The school my children attend require 40 hours of volunteer work each year -- otherwise your child goes back in to the lottery).
It's a statistical truth that just having a FATHER in the house reduces the risk of living in poverty. Further, *NOT* having a child before your 20s improves a MOTHERS changes of not living in poverty (and by extension, her child(ren)). The statistics are available -- look them up. They're easy to find. Easier to ignore.
"...and then I found a job. Keeping people from hanging out in front of the drug store".
My "friends" are family and friends so close to be considered family. Thats around 30 people with a few "odd ball" old friends who "found" me. That tops off around 40 folks in my "friends".
I only see about 15 in my feed (by config). So I WANT to know that little-princess 4 months old just learned to walk in THAT group.
What I don't understand is the desire to have 100, 200, 2000 friends. That is just crazy and leads to the signal overload you describe above.
"Newtown took place in the heart of gun-nut country, not the inner cities."
And that was 28 deaths, right? Add that total to all of Conn for 2012 and what do you have?
What was Chicago? Over 500? That's a Newtown every two weeks, isn't it?
You can pick an anomaly and base your reactions off it and the passions they invoke -- and not solve the problem. Or you can look at the over all stats and WHERE the problems are and have a simpler smaller target to address. Then MAYBE you can reduce those numbers dramatically.
NOT really. Maybe when we have a chimp that can sing jinglebells, count and talk we can say this.
Bright Side of Life (whistles).
Ok. Lets do this. Lets require all guns to be worn (unconcealed) by all owners at all times so they can display their current registration sticker -- just like motor vehicles.
Deal?
You tell me.
You admin they dont work. Why? Think about your answer and perhaps you'll understand WHY they CANT work.
"The ban on guns in society at large seems to work pretty well here in europe."
Europe isn't the US. Different cultures, different history with tyrants and oppressive governments and different solutions to those "histories". You aren't going to get a "ban" on guns. Where we have managed 'effective' bans, it's been ineffective.
Likewise, Sharia law may work for some cultures -- it wouldn't work very well in Europe I'm sure.
"Gun free zones and banning guns are two completely different things, and it does not follow that since the former doesn't work the latter won't either."
You are correct -- that it doesn't follow that if one doesn't work the other one will.
However, it does little good to make arguments that have no reasonable exception of having their premise realized:
"...but the point is that had it not been possible to simply buy them in the first place it seems unlikely that a child would be able to obtain one illegally just as easily."
(1) You can't reasonably expect to make it impossible to buy guns.
(2) If such 'magical' changes occur that MIGHT make this possible, there are too many guns in the 'wild'. They're effectively the there indefinitely.
(3) You can't reasonably expect our culture to confiscate guns. We don't live in a dictatorship -- or even a 'democracy'. We live in a republic. Good luck changing the Constitution on this one...
So, instead of pining for some assumed utopia where everyone things the way you do, how about we try and address the problem within the fabric of our culture?
Interesting use of "simple minded".
I'm unsure of the national average -- but in CA, about 70% of criminals re-offend within 3 years of their release. Look it up.
What does that have with assuming criminals are "all in"? Nothing, directly -- but assuming that criminals will not respect laws is certainly not "simple minded". If they used a gun before -- there is a pretty good (and not simple minded) expectation they will do so again. Regardless of what the law is.
Feeding the troll:
Nice try, but very poor analogy. A better one would have been to swap "gun" for "knife" or some other weapon.
But lets think in through. Banning "murder" with "the force of law" HAS proven to be effective. But not "guns". Why? Oh yeah -- they aren't the same thing. Gun != Murder so it should not be surprising that the results are different. Go figure.
"you post is nothing but logical fallacys. (sic)"
Really? I don't think you understand what that means.
Oh... maybe the number of school shootings since the 1990s "gun free school zone" ban? Since I'm not writing a paper or limiting my discussion to formal logic or syllogisms, I did make the assumption of a somewhat informed audience.
That is an unreasonable suggestion. You could not "just" confiscate them. We don't live in a dictatorship -- nor would you be able to find even the bulk of them should such an impossible suggestion magically become possible. Again, I'm not writing a paper and I did make assumptions of a somewhat informed audience. I'm not sure where you live, but if it's in the US, then it's you who is being incredulous.
Yes it is. Again, we've got a fairly large number of guns from pre-civil war that are still very functional.
Interesting statement. I don't think you know how to think reasonably. See my reference above regarding your thoughts on "just" confiscating guns.
"Find another solution."
Why because you can't make an argument?
(cough) ad hominem (/cough)
Because attempts to control gun violence have been ineffectual. You can cite a few cases where gun violence as gone down -- but there's far more where it has not. Look at Chicago or DC. They have what be the most restrictive gun laws in the nation -- and they appear to not be working. So, yes -- Find another solution. Because doing the same thing that's not working is just crazy talk.
And you are engaging in unreasonable thinking, in my opinion.
And some examples of your unreasonable thinking. That will not work in our culture. You will not get a Constitutional amendment passed to change/repeal the second amendment.
If something is POSSIBLE, but UNREASONABLE -- it does NOT qualify as a counter argument. I'm uninterested in effectively having a MATH discussion with you (which is what this would be if we were to limit ourselves to a discussion of formal logic and syllogisms). UNREASONABLE isn't countered by POSSIBLE in the real world. Look at your chances of winning the lottery for a real world example.
"It is possible to make background checks and document weapon sales."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.
"It is possible to impose limitations on the purchaser of such weapons to mitigate the risk their tools pose to the community."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.
"It is possible to limit the characteristics of privately-owned weapons."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.
"Rational people can understand that there are multiple, legitimate perspectives on the question, and that allows a dialog capable of finding balance among the opposing views. "
Agreed. However, when what has been done in the past has been ineffectual, how does 'doubling down' on an ineffective policy help move the ball?
Further, we cannot and should not legislate from passion. To pass laws after a "tragedy" inflames the passions of people only serves to enact extreme laws.
Maybe -- just MAYBE we can talk about ANOTHER approach.
Ok. Lets have that conversation. I notice you don't mention schools. How effective have those bans been for schools?
Many of the mass shootings were in "gun free zones". Ok, lets suppose there was no 'force of law' behind that. Would that have made a difference if there were? If so, why hasn't it with schools?
Banning guns will not work in our culture. Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. "Attrition" just isn't an option.
Find another solution.
I would like to see a ban against completely ineffectual laws. How effective were the "bans" on guns in movie theaters, malls and schools?
It's bad enough we have private industry in charge of much of our private information. At least THEY can be held accountable and sued or fined out of existence or at least suffer PR so bad that their business fails.
When the Government is in charge, what are you going to do? Sue them? Great. You win money from every tax payer and the problem wont get fixed -- it will just be more expensive to run -- for every tax payer.
"Unfortunately, the USA has a broken electoral system that forces politics to a two-party system."
No we don't. It works exactly as designed. The problem isn't the system, it's the voters. Maybe I'm an elitist, but I don't believe everyone SHOULD vote -- and on issues of which I'm ignorant, I DON'T vote.
If people can't take the initiative to REGISTER to vote and GO to their polling place (out of town or disabled as exceptions), people SHOULDN'T be encouraged to vote by "automatic registration" or "mandatory" absentee ballots. It's obvious (at least to me) that it's not that important to them.
"The reasoning is"
I'm sorry you have a reading comprehension problem, but what does that have to do with the government being unable to manage money and providing healthcare as it is and then GIVING it ALL of health care. If cost is a concern, what's the flipping reasoning? If "money paid" vs. "out of pocket" is a concern than putting ANYTHING in the governments hands is bad.
"What would help folks is a national health care system. The US spends more tax dollars on health care than any of the top 10 nations that have actual national health care systems... while not providing any healthcare"
Unbelievable. I really can't understand this reasoning. You ADMIT that the government is incompetent in how they spend the public's money ('while not providing any healthcare") while wanting to take a well working health care system and dismantle it and give it to the government to control! This is just insane thinking.
There were far simpler and cheaper solutions than this monster. Pre-existing conditions? Maybe move them to Medicare coverage for JUST those conditions.
("The US is ranked below most western nations on patient outcomes even though people in the US pay dramatically more for hospital care and procedures (I'm talking what is paid, not what is paid out of pocket)."
Toss up some citations and we can discuss. You've already admitted that the government won't be able to improve money spent...
This type of crazy talk only serves to polarize the system even more and should not be encouraged.
It's BUILT IN to the system to say "Hey, I don't want this, but if you take this out, I'll go along with it" or "I want this, but I'll take it out if you add that".
This is called COMPROMISE. Our entire system is based on it! If you want to call in crazy hyperbolic language to make a point, great. The problem is that it's become so prevalent that it's HURTING our ability to govern ourselves.
"The people elected Obama when a central part of his campaign was 'Obamacare'. They re-elected him. If congress want to repeal Obamacare then they could, and should, try and pass a bill doing so; "
Bad logic and shows you misunderstand how the system works.
The people elected Nixon. Twice. While Vietnam was a central part. Congress scuttled that by cutting off funding.
You need to remember that the HOUSE members are REPRESENTING the will of THEIR constituents. Now they are supposed to find some type of compromise. That's the way the system works.
The house submitted, what? Three different versions? Each closer to what the Senate wants? How far has the Senate moved?
The system was DESIGNED to work on compromise. Hell, our founding documents are products of compromise! (glaring example: 3/5s compromise).
Except folks dropped down to 29 hours a week might get back a few hours and make some extra money.
Think about it. You don't think this might actually HELP a lot of folks?
I don't have mixed feelings and I had a number of "hardships" that people don't necessarily have:
1) I was homeless for a little over 1 semester. I would get a hotel room ($25 a night) once or twice during the week for good sleep and shower and lived out of a locker.
2) I learned to "like" top ramen.
3) I had zero family support
I took longer to get my 4-year, but I also finished with zero debt. There are solutions and if we don't have the "comfy" luck of others, that doesn't give us an excuse to fail or make poor choices.