Smart gun laws

ABYUFAN wrote:

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.

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.

This kind of reminds me of the time in a debate when the girl debating the other side started presenting my side of the argument. You realize the government subsidizes all of those things, right? And I asked you to present things the government stopped subsidizing?



All of those things would be better performed in private markets than by the government. And in large measure already are better provided by competitors to the government despite enormous government subsidies.



The same goes for education. Private schools are twice as safe,if not more so. Kids perform better at private school despite similar socioeconomic class. And private schools cost a lot less money to run than government schools.

jvquarterback wrote:

[And I asked you to present things the government stopped subsidizing?

You actually never asked that, but at least I'm a girl who makes your arguments for you... ;) Can I make you a sandwich too?



Let's focus on railroads. Those started out privately owned - yes or no?



Those at their beginning were not subsidized yes or no?



Through time, they needed government protection whether through bankruptcy laws or subsidies yes or no?



Now your argument is that if the government were to step out of the process, the railroads would magically be better off because the private market that failed them before wouldn't do so again?

One cannot reasonably argue that private schools are safer merely because they are private. A whole host of variables would need to be controlled first to do that and I have not seen studies that have done that. Correlation is not the same as causation (see below)



http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations



(I have half a mind to think there IS a correlation between Nicholas Cage movies and pool drownings...but that's just me ;) And what is up with Norway and train collisions?!?

There would be less school shootings in America if we just made all of our students go to school in different countries.

Mars wrote:

There would be less school shootings in America if we just made all of our students go to school in different countries.

And made them pay for it!

Interesting comments from the prophet today on gun laws.

“I know your hearts are heavy as is mine as we contemplate those ruthless killings in Florida this last week. I think of Alaina Petty, 14-year-old Latter-day Saint, her life snuffed out by that sniper’s bullet…. you and others to say, ‘how could God allow things like that to happen?’ Well, God allows us to have our agency, and men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.”

http://fox13now.com/2018/02/23/lds-church-president-on-parkland-shooting-men-have-passed-laws-that-allow-guns-to-go-to-people-who-shouldnt-have-them/

No argument from me.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/



If the USA wants to get tough about gun laws, follow through on the ones we currently have.



in short 80k ppl attempted to buy guns and were denied. 44 were ever prosecuted. Most of these lied about their past in order to even have a background check run. This is already a crime.



Not that this will help much of anything. The black market, will provide any gun to nearly anyone for the right price.

BroncoBot wrote:

No argument from me.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/



If the USA wants to get tough about gun laws, follow through on the ones we currently have.



in short 80k ppl attempted to buy guns and were denied. 44 were ever prosecuted. Most of these lied about their past in order to even have a background check run. This is already a crime.



Not that this will help much of anything. The black market, will provide any gun to nearly anyone for the right price.

Agreed. There are many pieces to this puzzle that need attending to. The status quo must end.

jvquarterback wrote:

The same goes for education. Private schools are twice as safe,if not more so. Kids perform better at private school despite similar socioeconomic class. And private schools cost a lot less money to run than government schools.

But why are they twice as safe? You, in a previous post, said that private schools basically dismiss those problem students. Because they are able to get rid of problem students and let the public schools "handle" those issues.

ABYUFAN wrote:

[And I asked you to present things the government stopped subsidizing?

You actually never asked that ...

jvquarterback wrote:

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.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Let's focus on railroads. Those started out privately owned - yes or no?



Those at their beginning were not subsidized yes or no?



Through time, they needed government protection whether through bankruptcy laws or subsidies yes or no?



Now your argument is that if the government were to step out of the process, the railroads would magically be better off because the private market that failed them before wouldn't do so again?

These data are readily available.

We're getting a little off point so if you want to debate any of this feel free to open another thread but here are the answers to your questions.

1. Yes and no. The 1862 Railroad Act created the Union Pacific, making it the first federally-created corporation since the Bank of the United States. It wasn't until the 1890s that the first transcontinental private railroad was created.

2. Yes and no. The UP, CP, NP and others were subsidized through government loans and land grants. The Great Northern Railway and others weren't.

3. No. They were granted subsidies but they weren't needed. In fact, the Great Northern Railway (a private railway) was built after the previously subsidized St Paul/Northern Pacific Railway, collapsed despite enormous government subsidies.

4. No. It isn't magic. Markets efficiently direct the way businesses spend money. If they make poor decisions they are punished by the market and they go out of business. Not so for government owned (schools) or subsidized (railways) businesses. They continue to operate despite failure after failure.



Now if you want to debate any specific railroad we'd have to decide which one you're talking about and I'd do it in another thread. But do you really think the private markets failed the railroads? That might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard when the complete opposite is true. The private markets provided the most efficient transportation of people and goods (that was by ship mostly and continued to be by ship even after the railroads were created). Railroads were and are not efficient in the many cases of government run train services. Privately run railroads are safer than government run railroads as well (you can look at the numbers in Sweden and Britain recently and the whole of the world back when there were private and government train services running side by side).



Education is the same. In many cases there is too much education in areas where none is supported by private markets. I'm sure we can all look back on our own experiences for that, not to mention the worthless degrees so many people get. And yes some students would be kicked out of schools entirely (that happens today if you weren't aware) though likely more rarely than happens now. But real education, just like transportation, communication and every other good would improve in quality, safety, and volume if we got the government out of the industry. And the data support this to a greater degree than the data support any sort of gun control, which, once again is my point.

jvquarterback wrote:

But real education, just like transportation, communication and every other good would improve in quality, safety, and volume if we got the government out of the industry. And the data support this to a greater degree than the data support any sort of gun control, which, once again is my point.

I think the real reason people are hesitant to get on board with this idea, is that certain services may get more expensive. It wouldn't be subsidized. However, I believe that govt involvement in upper education is a huge reason we are having such enormous amounts of debt coming out of school. Schools know they can increase tuition every year and the govt will continue to pay the loans. It gets to the point that the degree isn't worth it, not even close in some cases.



Let the market decide.

First, I didn't understand "stopped subsidizing" to mean the same as "yielding to private markets." I see where you believe that those things mean the same thing, but in my mind they are actually not the same.



Specifically I'd like to hear one market in the united states that you believe that the government doesn't subsidize.



Second

jvquarterback wrote:

But real education, just like transportation, communication and every other good would improve in quality, safety, and volume if we got the government out of the industry. And the data support this to a greater degree than the data support any sort of gun control, which, once again is my point.

You're saying that when the government gets out of an area of regulation that area becomes safer? That's the opposite of my experience

BroncoBot wrote:

But real education, just like transportation, communication and every other good would improve in quality, safety, and volume if we got the government out of the industry. And the data support this to a greater degree than the data support any sort of gun control, which, once again is my point.

I think the real reason people are hesitant to get on board with this idea, is that certain services may get more expensive. It wouldn't be subsidized. However, I believe that govt involvement in upper education is a huge reason we are having such enormous amounts of debt coming out of school. Schools know they can increase tuition every year and the govt will continue to pay the loans. It gets to the point that the degree isn't worth it, not even close in some cases.



Let the market decide.

I do not believe the data supports the notion that the market always produce a better result in every instance and in every market, and I am a firm believer in the marketplace. But consider higher education. There has been a lot of growth in for-profit higher education institutions and yet I think the lasting legacy flowing from these schools is significantly higher debt. Right now, for what I am aware, of the schools where students have the worst debt problems, 13 come from for-profit institutions. And the quality of the education these students received is such that many of them cannot find employment. Publically funded higher education has been a benefit to our country. Is it perfect? No. But there is no evidence I am aware of that States defunding their universities would result in a better outcome.

What does for profit or not for profit have to do with anything? They're all subsidized by government loans to the students, or directly owned and operated by the states or federal government.



Find me any area where there is data to show a government controlled industry provides a better product than a privately run industry. So far I've heard railroads, hospitals, and this is no joke - some guy said the postal service is better than private competitors. I guess I'll keep waiting.

There are a lot of positives about private schools. Government doesn't exist to provide what people already have due to economics. It exists to provide for the needs that cannot be supplied otherwise (roads, military, free public education, etc). Private schools don't supplant the need for public education any more than my nice driveway supplants the need for highways.

jvquarterback wrote:

What does for profit or not for profit have to do with anything? They're all subsidized by government loans to the students, or directly owned and operated by the states or federal government.



Find me any area where there is data to show a government controlled industry provides a better product than a privately run industry. So far I've heard railroads, hospitals, and this is no joke - some guy said the postal service is better than private competitors. I guess I'll keep waiting.

I was responding to a comment that the market always does better in all situations. In higher education, the results are decidedly not so, at least when it comes to for profit institutions of higher learning.

More generally, it is very difficult to measure what you ask. Public schools HAVE to take every last student, disabled or disruptive included. Private schools don’t. USPS HAS to deliver mail at .$49 per letter to the last spot on the map. FedEx does not. Parks ARE open to all the public for free. Privately owned land does not have to be made open to all. So it is hard to really measure which way is better. I will see if I get your goat with this one, but Canada’s health service provides health care at one half the cost we spend in the US, yet the World Health Organization ranks Canada Better than the US when it comes to overall health. So we are spending twice as much for an apparent worse product. I know I know I know this makes me a socialist so you all can spare the spilt ink, but you asked..... if the market is so much better, why is our health care outcomes and expenses so much greater?

BoiseBYU wrote:

What does for profit or not for profit have to do with anything? They're all subsidized by government loans to the students, or directly owned and operated by the states or federal government.



Find me any area where there is data to show a government controlled industry provides a better product than a privately run industry. So far I've heard railroads, hospitals, and this is no joke - some guy said the postal service is better than private competitors. I guess I'll keep waiting.

I was responding to a comment that the market always does better in all situations. In higher education, the results are decidedly not so, at least when it comes to for profit institutions of higher learning.

More generally, it is very difficult to measure what you ask. Public schools HAVE to take every last student, disabled or disruptive included. Private schools don’t. USPS HAS to deliver mail at .$49 per letter to the last spot on the map. FedEx does not. Parks ARE open to all the public for free. Privately owned land does not have to be made open to all. So it is hard to really measure which way is better. I will see if I get your goat with this one, but Canada’s health service provides health care at one half the cost we spend in the US, yet the World Health Organization ranks Canada Better than the US when it comes to overall health. So we are spending twice as much for an apparent worse product. I know I know I know this makes me a socialist so you all can spare the spilt ink, but you asked..... if the market is so much better, why is our health care outcomes and expenses so much greater?

Part of the problem is that people see the words for-profit and they automatically think free market. A for profit university makes all of its money on government subsidies. No one in their right mind can say a for profit university in the united states is a a free market alternative to government schools. It's a dishonest way to present the subject. You'd have to find a non-government subsidized school (ie one that does not take federal student loans and there are several out there, of which BYU will probably someday be one) to make your argument.



The USPS has a monopoly on a box on your property in which you are not allowed to refuse the trash they leave there. Without that monopoly the USPS price for a letter (which the market has effectively replaced with email) would be astronomical. Still private industry (Amazon, Fedex, etc) effectively competes with the USPS for parcels. Furthermore, by subsidizing prices to Alaska and Hawaii, the USPS inflates the prices locally, decreasing the local volume of mail. What should cost a few pennies to send across town now costs 49 cents.



The US health industry is anything but a free market. And using the WHO to evaluate national health care systems is like taking the Soviet Union's official production numbers at face value. I'll just leave it there, but again if you'd like to debate this, I'd be happy to in another thread.



You may be presenting socialist ideas but the real problem is that you don't recognize that you are presenting other forms of socialism as your argument against the free market. If you are going to argue against free markets at least present examples of the free market rather than worse examples of socialism.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

What does for profit or not for profit have to do with anything? They're all subsidized by government loans to the students, or directly owned and operated by the states or federal government.



Find me any area where there is data to show a government controlled industry provides a better product than a privately run industry. So far I've heard railroads, hospitals, and this is no joke - some guy said the postal service is better than private competitors. I guess I'll keep waiting.

I was responding to a comment that the market always does better in all situations. In higher education, the results are decidedly not so, at least when it comes to for profit institutions of higher learning.

More generally, it is very difficult to measure what you ask. Public schools HAVE to take every last student, disabled or disruptive included. Private schools don’t. USPS HAS to deliver mail at .$49 per letter to the last spot on the map. FedEx does not. Parks ARE open to all the public for free. Privately owned land does not have to be made open to all. So it is hard to really measure which way is better. I will see if I get your goat with this one, but Canada’s health service provides health care at one half the cost we spend in the US, yet the World Health Organization ranks Canada Better than the US when it comes to overall health. So we are spending twice as much for an apparent worse product. I know I know I know this makes me a socialist so you all can spare the spilt ink, but you asked..... if the market is so much better, why is our health care outcomes and expenses so much greater?

Part of the problem is that people see the words for-profit and they automatically think free market. A for profit university makes all of its money on government subsidies. No one in their right mind can say a for profit university in the united states is a a free market alternative to government schools. It's a dishonest way to present the subject. You'd have to find a non-government subsidized school (ie one that does not take federal student loans and there are several out there, of which BYU will probably someday be one) to make your argument.



The USPS has a monopoly on a box on your property in which you are not allowed to refuse the trash they leave there. Without that monopoly the USPS price for a letter (which the market has effectively replaced with email) would be astronomical. Still private industry (Amazon, Fedex, etc) effectively competes with the USPS for parcels. Furthermore, by subsidizing prices to Alaska and Hawaii, the USPS inflates the prices locally, decreasing the local volume of mail. What should cost a few pennies to send across town now costs 49 cents.



The US health industry is anything but a free market. And using the WHO to evaluate national health care systems is like taking the Soviet Union's official production numbers at face value. I'll just leave it there, but again if you'd like to debate this, I'd be happy to in another thread.



You may be presenting socialist ideas but the real problem is that you don't recognize that you are presenting other forms of socialism as your argument against the free market. If you are going to argue against free markets at least present examples of the free market rather than worse examples of socialism.

While I welcome discussion, I am not interested in debating. You have given me some things to ponder. If you understand the metrics used, there is no problem in my book with referring to the WHO as a reporter of things. I would not equate them with the Soviet Union. The challenge I see to having a discussion with you is that you have defined away any ability to compare. I mentioned for-profit schools, and health care in the US, and the post office in efforts to explain the challenged of saying in every instance the market would produce a better result than the "government." If I understand your position, it is that these are all false comparisons because the "governement" is involved in the form of subsidies, regulations etc. And for you any such government involvement is socialist. I do not share that definition of socialism, but if your demand is to do only comparisons between pure market based activity with NO government influence whatsover v. what we have today, well I do not see how that comparison would be done. Today the government IS involved in every matter, whether it be cosmetologists needing a license (which I think is silly) to the EPA banning lead etc. So your demand to show is impossible to meet because of the parameters you have set. So I doubt we can have a really productive conversation on that. FWIW it do not think I am dishonest for mentioning the examples I mentioned above. One marketplace issue where perhaps having the government involved is a good thing is in the realm of natural monopolies. Perhaps you'd disagree even there and contend that an unfettered natural monopolist is better than the govt getting involved to regulate the monopolist's conduct?

There are examples close to free market in all of categories you've listed. Colleges exist that refuse title iv and don't accept students trying to use pell grants or federal student aid. There are many parcel delivery services that operate on the market without the enormous subsidies and direct ownership of the USPS, and there are plenty of free market health care options (cosmetic and ocular surgery, cash only businesses, etc). It's your choice not to address how those instances of the free market all provide better pricing, better services, and safer options than their socialist or otherwise government subsidized competitors.



You seriously don't think it's dishonest to call a for profit college that gets all of its funding from the government a problem with the free market? It's a problem, but not with the free market. It's a problem with the government subsidy, which by its very definition is not a free market. The other colleges are fleecing taxpayers just as much as the for profit competitors, but for whatever reason people are ok with professors, teachers, and administrators getting paid way more than the free market would determine is the true value of their services but cause an uproar when the shareholders do the same thing.

jvquarterback wrote:

There are examples close to free market in all of categories you've listed. Colleges exist that refuse title iv and don't accept students trying to use pell grants or federal student aid. There are many parcel delivery services that operate on the market without the enormous subsidies and direct ownership of the USPS, and there are plenty of free market health care options (cosmetic and ocular surgery, cash only businesses, etc). It's your choice not to address how those instances of the free market all provide better pricing, better services, and safer options than their socialist or otherwise government subsidized competitors.



You seriously don't think it's dishonest to call a for profit college that gets all of its funding from the government a problem with the free market? It's a problem, but not with the free market. It's a problem with the government subsidy, which by its very definition is not a free market. The other colleges are fleecing taxpayers just as much as the for profit competitors, but for whatever reason people are ok with professors, teachers, and administrators getting paid way more than the free market would determine is the true value of their services but cause an uproar when the shareholders do the same thing.

I lost my post somehow and am too tired to repeat it. But it was brilliant! I share your concern with how govt loans for higher education have played out, especially when it comes to for profit education entities. The data shows the loan guarantees haven’t produced very good results. And I know that nonprofit schools and govt schools are equally competing in the marketplace for students and Charina what they think the market will bear. And govt loans etc affect that market. No real surprise. We see govt interventions all over the economy. Where I was coming from is in response to a comment from a poster that we should let the market decide and in my view at least when it comes to higher education, as an example, for profit entities, employing market place principles of profit and loss etc., it has not turned out well for students I do not think that is dishonest to point that out or say that. Anyways no intent to be dishonest here. Sorry if you took it that way.