Another horrific school shooting

[ldsguy422]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You tell them that yesterday, at least 150 people—and maybe as many as three thousand people, depending on which statistics you use—used firearms to avoid being killed, beaten, raped, and/or robbed; and you ask them to name at least 150 people who should have died yesterday so that these fifteen victims could live.

Interesting. So I gotta ask, where do those numbers come from? 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

I'm sure this has been discussed before,  but I don't frequent this board very often. How do you all respond to people who scoff and mock those who publicly send thoughts and prayers to the families of victims? 

Fools mock, but they shall mourn.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

Interesting. So I gotta ask, where do those numbers come from? 

It’s been a while, but I think Wikipedia has an article on defensive gun use.  The stats are controversial, but range from about 55,000 per year on the low end to (IIRC) well over  a million a year at the extreme high end.

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s been a while, but I think Wikipedia has an article on defensive gun use.  The stats are controversial, but range from about 55,000 per year on the low end to (IIRC) well over  a million a year at the extreme high end.

Yep, still there, same stat for the low end.

[Guest MormonGator]

Many defensive gun uses go unrecorded, so the number is probably higher. Defensive gun use saves thousands of lives every day. 

[mordorbund]

28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You tell them that yesterday, at least 150 people—and maybe as many as three thousand people, depending on which statistics you use—used firearms to avoid being killed, beaten, raped, and/or robbed; and you ask them to name at least 150 people who should have died yesterday so that these fifteen victims could live.

Tomorrow, log back in and tell them to name another 150 people.  

Keep doing this, day after day, until they either quit being a dipweed or until they block you.  

This is known as the "AP Iraq War Strategy".

[bytebear]

It is interesting when you start looking at statistics.  I found an article on the "30 most dangerous cities in America".  Waco, Texas was #30, with 17 murders.  Wow, 17!   I live in a city often cited as one of the safest cities in America, until a few years back when a guy killed his girlfriend.  So, a single murder got us bumped from a safe place to a not-safe place.  And then I wonder, how often does a blip of 17 murders happen.  Can we go from the #1 safest city in the nation to the #30 most dangerous cities, just because we have a bad year? 

Similarly, I have seen the stats on there being 18 school shootings this year.  Well, no, there have been two targeted shootings at schools, including the one yesterday.  I hate the sentimentalization of this.   That 18 number includes suicides, for example, but I know of several suicides in my local community.  One of my coworkers was hiking and came across a guy who shot himself at the top of a bluff.  But, there was no media coverage whatsoever.  Gun deaths are only covered to be sensationalized.  And I believe this leads to more gun related violence.  This kid was troubled, and wanted to act out, so he did what kids know how to do, shoot up the school.   But if the trend was to pipe bomb libraries, he would have planned for that.  Back in the 1970s, we even coined the term "going postal" because postal workers were prone to shooting up the post office.  It's all trends, and sadly, the media makes the trend trendier. 
 

I simply don't believe guns are the problem.  I think it's a combination of lack of mental health support, from family, friends, and professionals, and the trend of shooting up schools.  But the thing is, everyone screams about getting rid of guns, when they really should be ramping up security at schools.  I personally, think a well trained and armed faculty will end school shootings almost immediately.   The notion that "gun free zones" is anything other than an invitation to attack is naive, and foolish.  I get that people are afraid of guns, but I think we need to be trained and familiarize ourselves with them if we want to stop crazy people from acting out on their craziness.

[bytebear]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You tell them that yesterday, at least 150 people—and maybe as many as three thousand people, depending on which statistics you use—used firearms to avoid being killed, beaten, raped, and/or robbed; and you ask them to name at least 150 people who should have died yesterday so that these fifteen victims could live.

Tomorrow, log back in and tell them to name another 150 people.  

Keep doing this, day after day, until they either quit being a dipweed or until they block you.  

I use a similar technique when told I am not being sympathetic to loss of life.  I remind them, and look up the statistics yourself, that every day 21,000 people will die of starvation.   Now, do you want to talk about what to do to save the most lives?  The fact is, some things are bigger than our individual abilities to deal with, and all we can do is have thoughts and prayers.

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I use a similar technique when told I am not being sympathetic to loss of life.  I remind them, and look up the statistics yourself, that every day 21,000 people will die of starvation.   Now, do you want to talk about what to do to save the most lives?  The fact is, some things are bigger than our individual abilities to deal with, and all we can do is have thoughts and prayers.

"One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."-Karl Marx. Ironically @Vorts favorite author. 

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

"One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."-Karl Marx. Ironically @Vorts favorite author. 

I thought that was Josef Stalin -- another old buddy of mine.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I thought that was Josef Stalin -- another old buddy of mine.

Hey, commie, give me a break. I'm quoting from memory here! 

[Ironhold]

Now the FBI's saying that they did indeed receive tips, but their Miami field office never acted on them. 

 

So... 17 people are dead now because someone didn't move in time. 

[Guest Godless]

On 2/15/2018 at 10:43 AM, ldsguy422 said:

I'm sure this has been discussed before,  but I don't frequent this board very often. How do you all respond to people who scoff and mock those who publicly send thoughts and prayers to the families of victims? 

The "thoughts and prayers" criticism is mostly aimed at politicians. Shooting happens. "Thoughts and prayers". Some may even pay lip service to making legislative change, but that never goes anywhere and eventually everything blows over until the next mass shooting. And in the meantime those "thoughts and prayers" politicians continue to take millions of dollars from the NRA.

I would also encourage you to read the second half of James chaper 2 (faith without works is dead), because I promise you that gun control advocates have. 

On 2/15/2018 at 11:21 AM, Carborendum said:

2) There was nowhere NEAR the level of class warfare prior to public schools as there is today. Public schools does nothing more than aggravate it.  Because let's face it, a faceless bureaucrat couldn't care less if your child has a decent education.  They only care about their numbers looking good.  You can lament the disintigration of trust in the political process all you want, but that's the reality of the public education system we live with.  Taking away public education will cause people to actually have to pay attention to education and find ways that work for them.  And the millions of kids who are currently forgotten, abused, and left behind will actually have a chance to get a real education.

You realize that slavery existed when public schools started to be established, right? And after slavery you had segregation. And today you have inner city schools neglected and underfunded because of test scores. THAT'S why there's been so much class warfare centered around public education. You fix that by fixing our public education system, not abolishing it. Because the reality is that those inner city kids will have nowhere else to go without public schools. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to fix the broken system, but it's a far more realistic goal than trying to fix the family unit.

Quote

3) I find the liberal talking point "Well, we HAVE to do SOMEthing!" alarmist.  Look at the pattern of the discussion.  A) Problem of gun violence in schools is stated.  B) Leftist says "We have to do something." C) I suggest that since violence in non-public schools is at a MUCH lower rate, that we should look at those options.  So, make a choice.  I was not the one saying it was an either or situation.  But if we followed my suggestion, we would have to acknowledge that there would be MUCH less violence against our school aged children. The statistics support it.

Give me a viable plan to get kids in Baltimore, Chicago, and LA into private schools and I will gladly support it. Keep in mind that only 10% of school-aged kids are currently enrolled in private schools (Source). What reason do you have to believe that the problems faced in public schools won't follow the 90% when they are in private schools?

Quote

3A) Domestic violence rates at homeschool and other schooling options are MUCH lower than the domestic violence rates of the public at large.  Public schools are actually worse, but thanks to bureaucrats covering their tails, they under-report it.  So, to get the true number, you actually have to dig instead of just looking at what schools themselves report.  In addition, domestic violence rates in public schooled families are also higher than homeschooled families.  Laws, foster families, public schools, public awareness campaigns, PSAs, and other methods have done almost nothing to stop or even reduce it.

Again, how will moving those kids from public school to private or home school going to solve the abuse problem?

On 2/15/2018 at 2:04 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

You tell them that yesterday, at least 150 people—and maybe as many as three thousand people, depending on which statistics you use—used firearms to avoid being killed, beaten, raped, and/or robbed; and you ask them to name at least 150 people who should have died yesterday so that these fifteen victims could live.

Tomorrow, log back in and tell them to name another 150 people.  

Keep doing this, day after day, until they either quit being a dipweed or until they block you.  

That would be a great argument if a majority of gun control advocates actually wanted to take personal defense weapons (typically handguns, not AR15s, btw) from mentally sound law-abiding citizens.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Godless

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

That would be a great argument if a majority of gun control advocates actually wanted to take personal defense weapons (typically handguns, not AR15s, btw) from mentally sound law-abiding citizens.

That would be a great argument if: 

a) progressives had a solid history of saying “we will go thus far, and no further” and then actually honoring that commitment once they had obtained their original aim; 

b) progressives weren’t continually praising confiscatory regimens like those implemented in Britain and Australia;

c) handguns were the only types of firearms used defensively; 

d) progressives weren’t increasingly getting into the habit of describing conservatives and religious people as “mentally unsound”; and 

e) progressives weren’t continually pressing for implementation of laws that conservatives cannot follow in good conscience.  

Edited February 17, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Godless]

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That would be a great argument if: 

a) progressives had a solid history of saying “we will go thus far, and no further” and then actually honoring that commitment once they had obtained their original aim; 

b) progressives weren’t continually praising confiscatory regimens like those implemented in Britain and Australia;

So because there are extreme anti-gun views on the left, we're not going to implement the less extreme measures that are supported by a majority of Americans (including many gun owners)? If the extreme abolishionist views are what you take issue with, then I suggest you find a liberal who holds those views to argue with.

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

c) handguns were the only types of firearms used defensively; 

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of defensive gun use by gun type. I would guess that handguns would prevail, probably followed by shotguns. A quick search didn't help me much. Do you have any stats?

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

d) progressives weren’t increasingly getting into the habit of describing conservatives and religious people as “mentally unsound”; 

You know who could properly identify the mental health factors behind gun violence? The CDC. But it was banned from doing so for 18 years thanks to pressure from the NRA. 

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

e) progressives weren’t continually pressing for implementation of laws that conservatives cannot follow in good conscience.  

There's a middle ground in the gun debate. Polls show that very clearly. Unfortunately we keep getting pushed away from sense and reason by NRA shills on your side and abolishionists on mine.

[Guest MormonGator]

https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/

Everyone should read this. It's longer than a post by @JohnsonJones (again, just playing JJ) but worth every read. The author is hardly a right winger-it's Sam Harris, famous atheist. 

[NeuroTypical]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/

Everyone should read this. It's longer than a post by @JohnsonJones (again, just playing JJ) but worth every read. The author is hardly a right winger-it's Sam Harris, famous atheist. 

Oh wow.  Ok, my new most favorite article I've read this month.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh wow.  Ok, my new most favorite article I've read this month.

I knew it would offend your left wing, anti gun views and it would also offend @Godless and maybe even effect his radical love for the NRA. But I had to post it. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

[1]So because there are extreme anti-gun views on the left, we're not going to implement the less extreme measures that are supported by a majority of Americans (including many gun owners)? If the extreme abolishionist views are what you take issue with, then I suggest you find a liberal who holds those views to argue with.

[2]I'd be interested to see a breakdown of defensive gun use by gun type. I would guess that handguns would prevail, probably followed by shotguns. A quick search didn't help me much. Do you have any stats?

[3]You know who could properly identify the mental health factors behind gun violence? The CDC. But it was banned from doing so for 18 years thanks to pressure from the NRA. 

[4]There's a middle ground in the gun debate. Polls show that very clearly. Unfortunately we keep getting pushed away from sense and reason by NRA shills on your side and abolishionists on mine.

1.  European-style confiscation schemes are not an extreme view on the left—to suggest otherwise is simply gaslighting—and discussion of any new policy needs to include discussion of how that policy can/will be exploited to drive further leftist drift over the long haul.

2.  I, too, would be interested in seeing further stats.  I imagine that it would vary according to the sorts of crimes being defended against; with handguns  prevailing in urban/public environments and long guns being more commonly used in rural areas and burglary/intruder/home-invasion scenarios. 

3.  Cute political point, but there are plenty of academic institutions capable of gathering their own data; and even if there weren’t, it doesn’t undercut my fundamental point.  The CDC is a government agency; and subject to co-option and misuse for tyrannical ends just like any other governmental entity.  

There can and should be more discussion about, and reform to, our way of dealing with the mentally ill; but to some degree we’re simultaneously overthinking this and underthinking it.  If a mentally ill person is too dangerous to own a firearm, perhaps they’re also too dangerous to be out of institutional care?  And if we trust a domestic-violence survivor with residual PTSD  to be out in society—maybe we shouldn’t object to her having a gun in case she finds herself being attacked by her abuser again?

4.  It’s frankly hard for me to engage with self-described centrist partners who use the expression “NRA shills”; particularly when I don’t remember those individuals ever referring to “Planned Parenthood shills” or “National Education Association shills” or “AFL-CIO shills”.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

There's a middle ground in the gun debate. Polls show that very clearly. Unfortunately we keep getting pushed away from sense and reason by NRA shills on your side and abolishionists on mine.

2

There is no middle ground.  Leave me alone.

[JohnsonJones]

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

3.  Cute political point, but there are plenty of academic institutions capable of gathering their own data; and even if there weren’t, it doesn’t undercut my fundamental point.  The CDC is a government agency; and subject to co-option and misuse for tyrannical ends just like any other governmental entity.  

There can and should be more discussion about, and reform to, our way of dealing with the mentally ill; but to some degree we’re simultaneously overthinking this and underthinking it.  If a mentally ill person is too dangerous to own a firearm, perhaps they’re also too dangerous to be out of institutional care?  And if we trust a domestic-violence survivor with residual PTSD  to be out in society—maybe we shouldn’t object to her having a gun in case she finds herself being attacked by her abuser again?

One thing that is a shame about the accusations against Mentally Ill...You know one of the biggest groups of individuals with PTSD?

Veterans.

What is ironic about them...99% of them would be safe with a gun, were entrusted to use guns and shoot people and did this effectively up until they were diagnosed with PTSD.

What changed with their status?

Absolutely nothing except for a piece of typing that a doctor did.  They are just as trustworthy, able, and probably experienced with guns of most citizens.

And yet, with one label we say they cannot be trusted to have a gun anymore.

It doesn't happen to every veteran, but there is a LARGE group of veterans it happens to.

It's part of what seriously makes me question the idea that people toss around in blaming the mentally ill.

I started thinking about it when I had an individual I met who was a veteran and told me about their diagnosis and debating on whether they should actually turn in their guns or do something else.  I found it ironic in regards to that individual.

It seemed that those that may have a mental illness were easy to blame and use as a catalyst to blame the problems on, but they were being scapegoated rather than an actual analysis of the situation around these things occurring.

So...I started looking at the other circumstances surrounding those who did violence with guns, and in almost any case it wasn't necessarily mental illness...but you could almost ALWAYS point out (when we actually knew the motive) that there was some anger or hate behind it.  That seemed a far more common denominator.  Even Bullying on the individual who eventually became the criminal seemed far more common than simply mental illness.

Of course, how do you identify such things?  I think that's the bigger difficulty.  I think that's the difficulty that a LOT of people have. 

They jump on this mentally ill situation, but in all honesty, MANY of those (even in situations where they may have had treatment and people may THINK they were...such as this latest incident in Florida...where the kid actually was NOT diagnosed with a mental illness even if he had treatment if what I've been reading has been accurate) were not diagnosed as being mentally ill.  They were perfectly legal when they got their weapons.  Assuming they must have been mentally ill in hindsight may seem obvious to some, but it presupposes that the professionals should have some magic ball...and also presupposes and blames the tens of millions (yes, there are tens of millions, and Utah has a huge percentage as well as Mormonism itself) of those who are mentally ill and NEVER even think about hurting or harming another.

I think it has hit home personally recently, as I had a grandchild (one of my older ones) that had a diagnosis of some severe mental illness (in the past 2 years).  It is something I am still learning about and dealing with.  I know it must be even harder for their parents than for me, but it is still something I grapple with (for example, due to the way the church does things in regards to missionaries, it is strongly probable that my grandchild would never be  able to serve a mission, even though they want to but will be unable to go for no other reason than this illness.  It makes it hard to deal with this sort of discrimination [IMO], and then you start seeing that type of discrimination against the mentally ill in many other areas.  It's almost that I'd suggest hiding it from anyone who does not need to know just to avoid it, but then I also don't think people should lie to their church leaders...so it's something I struggle with in that regards probably because I want my grandkids to be able to serve missions if they want, I've even offered to pay if they need it).  It's a difficult thing to deal with, and to see blatant blame laid out on those who have not done anything to merit it...at times I wonder if we should blame an entire group numbering far more than many other groups as the cause of our troubles, or  if we should narrow it down significantly to be able to better pinpoint those who are prone to utilize gun violence in schools or elsewhere.

Edited February 17, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Just_A_Guy]

I would just add from a policy standpoint, @JohnsonJones, that if even if we implemented a system where people with mental illnesses are simply “flagged” and required to undergo an individualized evaluation before being approved for gun purchase—the psychological evaluations we order in DCFS routinely run north of $1K.  That’s not insurmountable, of course—but it is a challenge to work out.  

It seems to me that past behaviors (ie criminal history) are probably a better prefictor than labels generated by the DSM-V; and we could probably re-think the way background checks are done and what kinds of convictions would bar a firearm purchase.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

You realize that slavery existed when public schools started to be established, right? And after slavery you had segregation. And today you have inner city schools neglected and underfunded because of test scores. THAT'S why there's been so much class warfare centered around public education. You fix that by fixing our public education system, not abolishing it.

You're conflating racial inequality with economic inequality.  As much as progressives like to equate the two, they are not the same thing. I readily admit there was slavery both before AND AFTER public schools were established.  And segregation was both before AND AFTER public schools were established (depending on what states you're talking about).  So, how has public schooling changed any of it?  It hasn't.  Other factors changed the world, not because of public schools, but rather in spite of it.

It wasn't public school that got Rosa Parks on that bus.  And it wasn't public school that got Martin Luther King behind a pulpit to inspire a generation of Blacks to stand up for their rights.  It was church and family.  It certainly wasn't government.  Government was what promoted segregation in the first place.  Why do you want MORE government to try to change such things?

12 hours ago, Godless said:

Because the reality is that those inner city kids will have nowhere else to go without public schools. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to fix the broken system, but it's a far more realistic goal than trying to fix the family unit.

Here is the real reality.  Prior to government funded schooling, the literacy rate was higher than any public schooling system has ever been able to duplicate since then.  Even the poorest families were able to afford a teacher in a community school.  And those who couldn't still read the Bible together as a family and taught their kids to read the Bible.  Government funding has caused the price of education to skyrocket so much higher than it ever was prior to GFS.  It is the very presence of government in schooling that has created the expense barrier in the first place.

I find it puzzling that you tout the failures of inner city schools and yet still consider them good enough to place them there and face possible death from mass shooting.  So which is it?  You agree that the inner city school is both ineffective at educating.  And you agree that it is so dangerous that you're lobbying against guns to keep them from a mass shooting.  So, why are these kids still in school?

12 hours ago, Godless said:

Give me a viable plan to get kids in Baltimore, Chicago, and LA into private schools and I will gladly support it. Keep in mind that only 10% of school-aged kids are currently enrolled in private schools (Source).

You're asking me to provide an overnight fix for a problem that the Force of Government took over 150 years to create?  Sorry, can't do that.  But what I can say is that once you get government out of schools, we will start on the road to recovery by simply letting people be free to choose without government telling them what they can and can't do for school. 

Will some slip through the cracks?  Yes, of course.  But you can't tell me that doesn't happen with public schools today.  And the numbers would be much better with no government involvement.

12 hours ago, Godless said:

Again, how will moving those kids from public school to private or home school going to solve the abuse problem?

Two different things:

1) I didn't say that home abuse would stop simply because of this measure.  I don't think it would.  It may be level.  It may be a touch up.  It may be a touch down.  But such a statistic would not change much because of homeschooling or public schooling.

2) What I WAS talking about was that 10% of our nations students are victims of sexual abuse by school employees within K-12 schools (Source).  But you want to put our kids in those schools rather than the arms of their own parents.  How does putting kids in public schools stop parental abuse?  It hasn't.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Guest

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You're conflating racial inequality with economic inequality.  As much as progressives like to equate the two, they are not the same thing. I readily admit there was slavery both before AND AFTER public schools were established.  And segregation was both before AND AFTER public schools were established (depending on what states you're talking about).  So, how has public schooling changed any of it?  It hasn't.  Other factors changed the world, not because of public schools, but rather in spite of it.

It wasn't public school that got Rosa Parks on that bus.  And it wasn't public school that got Martin Luther King behind a pulpit to inspire a generation of Blacks to stand up for their rights.  It was church and family.  It certainly wasn't government.  Government was what promoted segregation in the first place.  Why do you want MORE government to try to change such things?

Here is the real reality.  Prior to government funded schooling, the literacy rate was higher than any public schooling system has ever been able to duplicate since then.  Even the poorest families were able to afford a teacher in a community school.  And those who couldn't still read the Bible together as a family and taught their kids to read the Bible.  Government funding has caused the price of education to skyrocket so much higher than it ever was prior to GFS.  It is the very presence of government in schooling that has created the expense barrier in the first place.

I find it puzzling that you tout the failures of inner city schools and yet still consider them good enough to place them there and face possible death from mass shooting.  So which is it?  You agree that the inner city school is both ineffective at educating.  And you agree that it is so dangerous that you're lobbying against guns to keep them from a mass shooting.  So, why are these kids still in school?

You're asking me to provide an overnight fix for a problem that the Force of Government took over 150 years to create?  Sorry, can't do that.  But what I can say is that once you get government out of schools, we will start on the road to recovery by simply letting people be free to choose without government telling them what they can and can't do for school. 

Will some slip through the cracks?  Yes, of course.  But you can't tell me that doesn't happen with public schools today.  And the numbers would be much better with no government involvement.

Two different things:

1) I didn't say that home abuse would stop simply because of this measure.  I don't think it would.  It may be level.  It may be a touch up.  It may be a touch down.  But such a statistic would not change much because of homeschooling or public schooling.

2) What I WAS talking about was that 10% of our nations students are victims of sexual abuse by school employees within K-12 schools (Source).  But you want to put our kids in those schools rather than the arms of their own parents.  How does putting kids in public schools stop parental abuse?  It hasn't.

I think you have a misunderstanding of history on this subject, but I'm not really feeling about getting into a discussion on it here.  I did want to bring up a source that you cited (yes, I do follow people's links and read their articles) that didn't seem to be a good foundation of an individual's views.

The article you pointed out (real reality article) is rather slanted, and actually really dated on top of that (and no surprise, they are using 15 to 20 year old sources WHEN THE article was written [apparently around 14 years ago] with the most recent reference at 10 years prior to it being written, and the oldest being 53 years before the article was written.  This is okay if it is with primary sources, but with other sources that are simply informational...that is what you call being outdated before you even write the article), but made me curious about it's source.

So, I looked it up...it's an anarcho-capitalist website spawned from a dispute from back with the Cato Institute.  It flat out lies about what it does on it's about us page, and does not actually state what it's focus is, and that even common libertarians would find the views on this website a little extremist.  To say they misquote, and misrepresent the items that they use as references is to actually be extremely lenient on them.   They REALLY misrepresent things to the point of saying the exact opposite of what their references even state in some cases.

I'm not sure that would be the best site for quoting economic policies or basing them on...though an Anarcho-Capitalist would absolutely love that you are.  The site trades upon the ignorance of the readership to believe that they are reading a non-political article on a REAL researched subject from a neutral viewpoint, but the "REAL REALITY" is that the Mises Institute website is a economic-political site pushing an strong politically economic message.

My thoughts in regards to our private vs. public education in the US today...

We ALREADY HAVE BOTH systems at work in the US already today, and we can directly compare both of them to see results and percentages of literacy and graduation rates compared to the population in the US as a whole.

A better example of what paying for private education would be like probably would be to show the percentage of Americans that read at a 16th grade level (aka...have received a bachelor's degree and READ at that level).  The reason is that we currently have a private pay for education already in the US...that being for grades 13+, which normally consist of undergraduate and then graduate school.

You will find that the percent of literacy in the PAY for education programs of the US is severely lacking.  The quality of those that graduate (IMO) are HIGHER than elsewhere, but the percentage who actually achieve this level of education is starkly contrasted in relation to how many at least get a HS degree from a public education.

Edited February 18, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

 

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think you have a misunderstanding of history on this subject, but I'm not really feeling about getting into a discussion on it here.  I did want to bring up a source that you cited (yes, I do follow people's links and read their articles) that didn't seem to be a good foundation of an individual's views.

The article you pointed out (real reality article) is rather slanted, and actually really dated on top of that (and no surprise, they are using 15 to 20 year old sources WHEN THE article was written [apparently around 14 years ago] with the most recent reference at 10 years prior to it being written, and the oldest being 53 years before the article was written.  This is okay if it is with primary sources, but with other sources that are simply informational...that is what you call being outdated before you even write the article), but made me curious about it's source.

So, I looked it up...it's an anarcho-capitalist website spawned from a dispute from back with the Cato Institute.  It flat out lies about what it does on it's about us page, and does not actually state what it's focus is, and that even common libertarians would find the views on this website a little extremist.  To say they misquote, and misrepresent the items that they use as references is to actually be extremely lenient on them.   They REALLY misrepresent things to the point of saying the exact opposite of what their references even state in some cases.

I'm not sure that would be the best site for quoting economic policies or basing them on...though an Anarcho-Capitalist would absolutely love that you are.  The site trades upon the ignorance of the readership to believe that they are reading a non-political article on a REAL researched subject from a neutral viewpoint, but the "REAL REALITY" is that the Mises Institute website is a economic-political site pushing an strong politically economic message.

My thoughts in regards to our private vs. public education in the US today...

We ALREADY HAVE BOTH systems at work in the US already today, and we can directly compare both of them to see results and percentages of literacy and graduation rates compared to the population in the US as a whole.

A better example of what paying for private education would be like probably would be to show the percentage of Americans that read at a 16th grade level (aka...have received a bachelor's degree and READ at that level).  The reason is that we currently have a private pay for education already in the US...that being for grades 13+, which normally consist of undergraduate and then graduate school.

You will find that the percent of literacy in the PAY for education programs of the US is severely lacking.  The quality of those that graduate (IMO) are HIGHER than elsewhere, but the percentage who actually achieve this level of education is starkly contrasted in relation to how many at least get a HS degree from a public education.

Oh, did the history of the 1800s change in the last 20 years?  I wasn't aware.  But I'm no historian. So please cite more up-to-date sources that have figures you agree with and see if it stands up to equal scrutiny.

This set of data has been around for a while, like you said.  And it has stood up in many arenas. The thing is that these are the data that our opponents are using to outline the problem that we already knew existed.  If our opponents agree with us on that data, then what you getting at?

And your take on what libertarians would accept or not is unfounded.  This is exactly a common talking point.  And the Mises Institute is a well revered libertarian think tank.

I found it disturbing that you made many accusations and characterizations (such as they outright lied on their "about us" page) without any specifics to back it up.  Can you?  Or is that all you've got to discredit the data?

Because even the liberal talking points agree that the US does not have the rates of literacy that they believe are in public schools.  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html

And 93275.pdf

or https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf

Edited February 18, 2018 by Guest