Smart gun laws

I'd be in favor of implementing a law that makes law enforcement liable for not protecting the public. If they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone is a danger to themselves or others and they do not respond, they should be liable. The FBI would no longer be ignoring calls like the ones they had been receiving for months before the Florida shooting.

hawkwing wrote:

I'd be in favor of implementing a law that makes law enforcement liable for not protecting the public. If they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone is a danger to themselves or others and they do not respond, they should be liable. The FBI would no longer be ignoring calls like the ones they had been receiving for months before the Florida shooting.

Interesting idea. I'd be willing to consider it. Help me understand though--had the FBI followed up, what could they have done? He had not committed a federal crime, right?, So they could not have arrested him or taken away his guns, or is that just wrong? I really do not know.

snoscythe wrote:

We get it. You're the guy whose favorite word is "no".



Given the current state of affairs, what practical solution do you propose?

Abolish schools to end school shootings. Sorry if you interpret that as another no.



You don't hear about this sort of thing at private schools and there's a reason for that. People should evaluate those reasons. At the very least we should expect the children being educated to pay for their education. There is ample evidence that when people are invested in their learning they perform better scholastically. The private schools in my area tout the fact that they will immediately expel anyone involved in a gang. And gang violence at schools is a much bigger deal than these one off shootings. The chances of being attacked by another student or the victim of any crime is much lower at private schools.



We also have to consider that your chances of being shot at a school are still less than your chances of being struck by lightning.

hawkwing wrote:

I'd be in favor of implementing a law that makes law enforcement liable for not protecting the public. If they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone is a danger to themselves or others and they do not respond, they should be liable. The FBI would no longer be ignoring calls like the ones they had been receiving for months before the Florida shooting.

This will never happen. The police unions will destroy anyone who thinks they should be responsible for their actions even financially, let alone criminally.

Abolish free public education? That would be the single worst thing our county had ever done. It would tank the economy, increase crime and violence, and eventually drop us down to a 2nd-world nation.

Some FBI statistics on Murders and the weapons used, 2015. With all the chatter about banning AR-15's, I thought it would be interesting to look at some comparisons. You'll notice that murder by rifle is down the list.



Handgun - 6,447

Knives - 1,544

Hands, fists, feet - 624

Blunt objects - 437 (clubs, baseball bats)

Shotgun - 269

Rifle - 252

Mars wrote:

Abolish free public education? That would be the single worst thing our county had ever done. It would tank the economy, increase crime and violence, and eventually drop us down to a 2nd-world nation.

Because you have data to back that up? Go check the data on individuals, even very poor ones, who pay for their own education. Then come back and let us know what you find. it can be like one of those reports you did in one of your government schools.



How about you back up any of your knee jerk reactions with a shred of data showing they'll have the slightest impact and then rejoin the conversation.

jvquarterback wrote:

Abolish free public education? That would be the single worst thing our county had ever done. It would tank the economy, increase crime and violence, and eventually drop us down to a 2nd-world nation.

Because you have data to back that up? Go check the data on individuals, even very poor ones, who pay for their own education. Then come back and let us know what you find. it can be like one of those reports you did in one of your government schools.



How about you back up any of your knee jerk reactions with a shred of data showing they'll have the slightest impact and then rejoin the conversation.

That kind of cuts both ways. If you had any data to support the idea that less education is better I'd love to see that

jvquarterback wrote:

We get it. You're the guy whose favorite word is "no".



Given the current state of affairs, what practical solution do you propose?

Abolish schools to end school shootings.

I know how to stop abortions too . . .



https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/51881001/you-get-a-vasectomy-and-you-get-a-vasectomy-everyone-gets-a-vasectomy.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



So much for "practical" solutions.

There are hundreds of studies showing the positive link between high GDP and high educational spending (and between low GDP and low educational spending). Here's one:



https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp

ABYUFAN wrote:

Mars wrote:

Abolish free public education? That would be the single worst thing our county had ever done. It would tank the economy, increase crime and violence, and eventually drop us down to a 2nd-world nation.

Because you have data to back that up? Go check the data on individuals, even very poor ones, who pay for their own education. Then come back and let us know what you find. it can be like one of those reports you did in one of your government schools.



How about you back up any of your knee jerk reactions with a shred of data showing they'll have the slightest impact and then rejoin the conversation.

That kind of cuts both ways. If you had any data to support the idea that less education is better I'd love to see that

I think you've stated my assertion incorrectly. It should be less government education is better. Educational quality improves on the private market (just like everything else). So would the volume of education. Mars' data is a red herring. Sure spending is greater in wealthier countries, that doesn't mean it's even correlated with outcomes (not even addressed in the study Mars cited).



My real point is there is more data that privatizing education will decrease school violence than there is that enacting any gun laws will decrease violence at schools. It is simple fact that less violence occurs at private schools - there are fewer fights, less bullying, fewer gang members, fewer threats against and attacks on teachers, and, of course, fewer shootings (https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014042).



I had a post with a bunch of studies from Africa outlining the benefits of having parents (and the kids themselves) pay for part of their education in terms of educational outcomes (lost most of it when i tried to post this the first time). Liberia is currently the big experiment and you can look up how the country is outsourcing education to private contractors. The initial reports are that kids in private schools perform far better than those in public schools (despite teachers in the private schools only taking a five week course in teaching). I don't think charter schools are the best idea but any step toward privatization is better than what we currently have.



Of course, the teacher's unions in Uganda and Kenya (and the teacher's unions in Liberia are trying the same thing) have been able to repress the private schools there with ridiculous barriers to entry, but that is an example of the current system of government schools barring entry into education at the behest of union thugs. The private schools are refusing to close in Uganda and Kenya despite the government mandates because the parents recognize what's going on.



There isn't a ton of good data in the US regarding parents paying for schools - everyone will say it's skewed due to socioeconomic disparities among students at private schools. But here's an article that says that college students who pay for their own schooling get better grades than those whose parents pay for their schooling.



In Africa the data is compelling for parents, even very poor parents, who pay for their children's primary and secondary education. In places like Kenya, though, even though private primary school students perform better than public schools in poor neighborhoods, acceptance into secondary schools is limited to 1/4 from private schools and 3/4 from public schools. Good on the union thugs for preserving their piece of the pie though, right Mars?



The real benefit of private schools is that they are accountable to their customers. Government schools not so much. There's a reason people go after gun manufacturers and not government employees. Make the schools and teachers financially responsible for the safety of the students and you'd see a huge change in student safety. You don't even need that - imagine if there were a shooting at a private school and parents found out the kid who did it was a known troublemaker to the school. That school would shut down in a minute as all the parents would withdraw their children. You need some sort of financial responsibility from the school. There is none at the government school.

Mars wrote:

I guess semiauto weapons will keep American citizens safe from a rogue government coming after them with tanks and helicopters. Okay, no, that's silly.

Missed this gem. Why don't you tell us how the guys with semiautomatic weapons are faring against the guys with tanks, helicopters, and drones in Afghanistan and Yemen?

jvquarterback wrote:



My real point is there is more data that privatizing education will decrease school violence than there is that enacting any gun laws will decrease violence at schools. It is simple fact that less violence occurs at private schools - there are fewer fights, less bullying, fewer gang members, fewer threats against and attacks on teachers, and, of course, fewer shootings (https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014042).

How much of this is due to what you said previously?

jvquarterback wrote:

You don't hear about this sort of thing at private schools and there's a reason for that. People should evaluate those reasons. At the very least we should expect the children being educated to pay for their education. There is ample evidence that when people are invested in their learning they perform better scholastically. The private schools in my area tout the fact that they will immediately expel anyone involved in a gang. And gang violence at schools is a much bigger deal than these one off shootings. The chances of being attacked by another student or the victim of any crime is much lower at private schools.

If you're a problem child at a private school you quickly find yourself out of private school.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

Abolish free public education? That would be the single worst thing our county had ever done. It would tank the economy, increase crime and violence, and eventually drop us down to a 2nd-world nation.

Because you have data to back that up? Go check the data on individuals, even very poor ones, who pay for their own education. Then come back and let us know what you find. it can be like one of those reports you did in one of your government schools.



How about you back up any of your knee jerk reactions with a shred of data showing they'll have the slightest impact and then rejoin the conversation.

That kind of cuts both ways. If you had any data to support the idea that less education is better I'd love to see that

I think you've stated my assertion incorrectly. It should be less government education is better. Educational quality improves on the private market (just like everything else). So would the volume of education. Mars' data is a red herring. Sure spending is greater in wealthier countries, that doesn't mean it's even correlated with outcomes (not even addressed in the study Mars cited).



My real point is there is more data that privatizing education will decrease school violence than there is that enacting any gun laws will decrease violence at schools. It is simple fact that less violence occurs at private schools - there are fewer fights, less bullying, fewer gang members, fewer threats against and attacks on teachers, and, of course, fewer shootings (https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014042).



I had a post with a bunch of studies from Africa outlining the benefits of having parents (and the kids themselves) pay for part of their education in terms of educational outcomes (lost most of it when i tried to post this the first time). Liberia is currently the big experiment and you can look up how the country is outsourcing education to private contractors. The initial reports are that kids in private schools perform far better than those in public schools (despite teachers in the private schools only taking a five week course in teaching). I don't think charter schools are the best idea but any step toward privatization is better than what we currently have.



Of course, the teacher's unions in Uganda and Kenya (and the teacher's unions in Liberia are trying the same thing) have been able to repress the private schools there with ridiculous barriers to entry, but that is an example of the current system of government schools barring entry into education at the behest of union thugs. The private schools are refusing to close in Uganda and Kenya despite the government mandates because the parents recognize what's going on.



There isn't a ton of good data in the US regarding parents paying for schools - everyone will say it's skewed due to socioeconomic disparities among students at private schools. But here's an article that says that college students who pay for their own schooling get better grades than those whose parents pay for their schooling.



In Africa the data is compelling for parents, even very poor parents, who pay for their children's primary and secondary education. In places like Kenya, though, even though private primary school students perform better than public schools in poor neighborhoods, acceptance into secondary schools is limited to 1/4 from private schools and 3/4 from public schools. Good on the union thugs for preserving their piece of the pie though, right Mars?



The real benefit of private schools is that they are accountable to their customers. Government schools not so much. There's a reason people go after gun manufacturers and not government employees. Make the schools and teachers financially responsible for the safety of the students and you'd see a huge change in student safety. You don't even need that - imagine if there were a shooting at a private school and parents found out the kid who did it was a known troublemaker to the school. That school would shut down in a minute as all the parents would withdraw their children. You need some sort of financial responsibility from the school. There is none at the government school.

Do you believe that a private education system would result in more educational opportunities than government run education? If not, then I've stated your position correctly.



this is the best line from your post above " But here's an article that says that college students who pay for their own schooling get better grades than those whose parents pay for their schooling."



Let that sink in - you're proposing that not only do we have private schools, but that Johnny should be forced to work to pay for his time in the second grade, because he'll be perform better.



Also when you kick the trouble maker out of grade school under your new system - where does that trouble maker go? Are we sentencing 6 year olds to a lifetime with no education because their parents beat them up the night before?

1- You didn't read my link if you think it didn't explicitly make the correlation I stated. It did. The statistic is percentage of GDP spent on education, not total spending.



2- Your first argument is that kids in private school do better than kids in public schools. That is true. It's the same thing as saying kids with rich parents have better opportunities than kids with poor parents. But it doesn't support the crazy jump in logic you make next.



3- You are claiming that no education is better than public education. Those without money to pay for private school would receive no education at all. This is simply foolish, and easily refuted (as I've already done).



If my main goal in life is not to eat poisoned food, I could starve myself to death. That's not really useful though. Destroying public education to stop school shootings is equally illogical.

First, let me reiterate my point once again. There is more data supporting the idea that closing government run schools will decrease school violence than there is evidence any changes to gun laws will reduce school violence. So why are people only talking about gun control and not changes to schools? You know the answer.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Do you believe that a private education system would result in more educational opportunities than government run education? If not, then I've stated your position correctly.

Absolutely. I'll wait for you or Mars to give me one example of a good that the government yielded to private markets that has decreased in volume produced. Airplanes, telephones, you name it, when the government gets out of any business, options improve tremendously. And somehow even the poorest of the poor in Africa can afford their $30 smartphones.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Let that sink in - you're proposing that not only do we have private schools, but that Johnny should be forced to work to pay for his time in the second grade, because he'll be perform better.

I am proposing no such thing. I admit there is little data for this in the US, but there is ample data from developing countries that parents, even those in abject poverty, who contribute monetarily to their children's education have children who perform significantly better than those attending government schools. Many of these children receive significant tuition assistance from private donations, much as happens at private Catholic schools in the US. I'm not sure if having Johnny work for his supper will help at younger ages, but making his parents work for it sure will. And no one can argue parents in the US are even close to facing the financial difficulties of parents in Africa.



Imagine for a moment government schools in Utah were abolished. How many kids would be turned away from the elementary and secondary schools the church would begin to operate (much more efficiently than the current government schools)? Do the same thing in California and you would see a huge improvement in BYU recruiting, not to mention the societal changes we all know are more important than any gun control measure.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Also when you kick the trouble maker out of grade school under your new system - where does that trouble maker go? Are we sentencing 6 year olds to a lifetime with no education because their parents beat them up the night before?

I think you underestimate humanity here. In a church run school people would rush to help that kid in a way no government school could replicate.

Mars wrote:

1- You didn't read my link if you think it didn't explicitly make the correlation I stated. It did. The statistic is percentage of GDP spent on education, not total spending.

And how does that spending correlate to outcomes? Rich countries spend more on education - sounds like something the government would spend several billion dollars to figure out. The study you cite doesn't address outcomes. You're welcome to post any of the graphs from the study you like.

jvquarterback wrote:



Absolutely. I'll wait for you or Mars to give me one example of a good that the government yielded to private markets that has decreased in volume produced. Airplanes, telephones, you name it, when the government gets out of any business, options improve tremendously. And somehow even the poorest of the poor in Africa can afford their $30 smartphones.

do you mean like hospitals, railroads and the US Mail?

ABYUFAN wrote:

Absolutely. I'll wait for you or Mars to give me one example of a good that the government yielded to private markets that has decreased in volume produced. Airplanes, telephones, you name it, when the government gets out of any business, options improve tremendously. And somehow even the poorest of the poor in Africa can afford their $30 smartphones.

do you mean like hospitals, railroads and the US Mail?

Write me back when the government leaves those to private businesses. Even with government subsidies, surgery centers charge significantly less for better care than hospitals, private railroads still thrive, and believe it or not there is a lot more communication these days facilitated by private email servers at google than were sent in the history of the US Mail at a fraction of the price.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:



Absolutely. I'll wait for you or Mars to give me one example of a good that the government yielded to private markets that has decreased in volume produced. Airplanes, telephones, you name it, when the government gets out of any business, options improve tremendously. And somehow even the poorest of the poor in Africa can afford their $30 smartphones.

do you mean like hospitals, railroads and the US Mail?

Write me back when the government leaves those to private businesses. Even with government subsidies, surgery centers charge significantly less for better care than hospitals, private railroads still thrive, and believe it or not there is a lot more communication these days facilitated by private email servers at google than were sent in the history of the US Mail at a fraction of the price.

Surgery centers provide significantly less services than hospitals. Surgery centers clearly as you say "decreased in volume produced".



You say that private railroads "thrive." If by "thrive" you mean we have no non-government commuter rail travel (outside of the Disneyland Railroad) and that we have fewer actual rail companies than we did 50 years ago we may agree on that point. However, your original statement was that government getting out of a business increases "options improve tremendously" In the rail business that is simply not true.



And google was not able to deliver a package for me to my son on his mission. But it was awfully nice of me to take a picture of my Christmas gift that I bought him and then email that picture to him of his gift. I also had him sign his driver's license renewal and then googled it over to the DMV for him. There are other options for parcel and letter delivery all of which cost more and were no more efficient.

And although students have to pay for a college education, shootings take place at colleges as well.