Are Guns the Problem?

[uwot]

Get government totally out of education at every level, eliminate the non-taxable status of so-called non-profit colleges and universities, and turn the entire system over to sink-or-swim free-market capitalism.

That's more or less what already happens. The top schools are very expensive and intervention is negligible; all government does is ensure that most children get at last some education. What you are advocating has the advantage that there would be fewer schools for gun wielding maniacs to run amok in. On the downside, there would be more people with easy access to guns and a poor education.

[bobevenson]

Get government totally out of education at every level, eliminate the non-taxable status of so-called non-profit colleges and universities, and turn the entire system over to sink-or-swim free-market capitalism.

That's more or less what already happens. The top schools are very expensive and intervention is negligible; all government does is ensure that most children get at last some education. What you are advocating has the advantage that there would be fewer schools for gun wielding maniacs to run amok in. On the downside, there would be more people with easy access to guns and a poor education.

No, that's not more or less what already happens. Again, government should be completely out of education. Government departments of education should be immediately abolished. Children should receive a minimum standard of food, clothing and shelter, but you don't have the goddamn government setting up a department of food, clothing and shelter, do you? Your wealthy non-profit educational facilities like Harvard should be forced to immediately become private corporations with stockholders. That way, if a company wanted to turn Harvard into a whorehouse, and I'm not saying it isn't one already, it could offer a financial bid to the stockholders. Any further questions?

[uwot]

No, that's not more or less what already happens.

This from Forbes:
"As many public schools across the country struggle for resources, the top private institutions want for nothing. Waiting lists are long at top prep schools despite a median national tuition cost of $16,970 a year, according to the National Association of Independent Schools. That’s 79% higher than the median cost 20 years ago, even taking inflation into account. In the traditional stronghold of the Northeast, home to such renowned schools as Milton Academy, Choate Rosemary Hall and Phillips Exeter Academy, the median tuition rises to over $23,000. And that’s just the day student tuition. Those who board at a private school can expect to pay as much as $10,000 more."

Students from such schools are disproportionately represented at Ivy League institutions, graduates from which are disproportionately represented in government. Rich and powerful people pay for their children to go to expensive schools, that will ensure they grow up rich and powerful. It is a perfect example of free market capitalism, it supports the people who least need it. The only difference that government intervention makes is to ensure that everybody gets to go to some sort of school.

Again, government should be completely out of education. Government departments of education should be immediately abolished. Children should receive a minimum standard of food, clothing and shelter, but you don't have the goddamn government setting up a department of food, clothing and shelter, do you?

If you believe that "Children should receive a minimum standard of food, clothing and shelter", who do you think should ensure they do?

Your wealthy non-profit educational facilities like Harvard should be forced to immediately become private corporations with stockholders. That way, if somebody wanted to turn Harvard into a whorehouse, and I'm not saying it isn't one already, they could offer a financial bid to the stockholders. Any further questions?

Who, if not the government, is going to force Harvard to do anything?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




......................................................





Guns are part of the problem...




Assholes with guns is the remainder of the equation.





.

[bobevenson]

Guns are part of the problem, and assholes with guns are the remainder of the problem.

No, the entire problem is assholes who think guns are part of the problem.

[bobevenson]

No, that's not more or less what already happens.

This from Forbes:
"As many public schools across the country struggle for resources, the top private institutions want for nothing. Waiting lists are long at top prep schools despite a median national tuition cost of $16,970 a year, according to the National Association of Independent Schools. That’s 79% higher than the median cost 20 years ago, even taking inflation into account. In the traditional stronghold of the Northeast, home to such renowned schools as Milton Academy, Choate Rosemary Hall and Phillips Exeter Academy, the median tuition rises to over $23,000. And that’s just the day student tuition. Those who board at a private school can expect to pay as much as $10,000 more."

Students from such schools are disproportionately represented at Ivy League institutions, graduates from which are disproportionately represented in government. Rich and powerful people pay for their children to go to expensive schools, that will ensure they grow up rich and powerful. It is a perfect example of free market capitalism, it supports the people who least need it. The only difference that government intervention makes is to ensure that everybody gets to go to some sort of school. The government already ensures that children receive a minimum amount of food, clothing, shelter and education, or they are forcibly put into another environment. Expensive schools are a sham to begin with, but if rich people want to send their children to them, so what?

Again, government should be completely out of education. Government departments of education should be immediately abolished. Children should receive a minimum standard of food, clothing and shelter, but you don't have the goddamn government setting up a department of food, clothing and shelter, do you?

If you believe that "Children should receive a minimum standard of food, clothing and shelter", who do you think should ensure they do? The government already does.

Your wealthy non-profit educational facilities like Harvard should be forced to immediately become private corporations with stockholders. That way, if a company wanted to turn Harvard into a whorehouse, and I'm not saying it isn't one already, it could offer a financial bid to the stockholders. Any further questions?

Who, if not the government, is going to force Harvard to do anything? The federal government should immediately force Harvard into a profit-making corporation with stockholders, and force the states to sell all of their schools.

[Impenitent]

-Imp

[bobevenson]

Correct, gun laws only result in complicating the lives of law-abiding citzens.

[uwot]

The government already ensures that children receive a minimum amount of food, clothing, shelter and education, or they are forcibly put into another environment. Expensive schools are a sham to begin with, but if rich people want to send their children to them, so what?

Yes, but if the government insists on minimum standards of education, you cannot have the free market you espouse. If, as you say, children 'should' have a minimum amount, someone has to ensure that happens. There is no profit in teaching children of parents who are unwilling or unable to pay. Expensive schools work, because they ensure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. If you think it right that some children, because of their background have to work much harder than others to achieve, then, so nothing. Personally, I think it is a waste of resources, because inevitably, people are not where they are purely on merit.

[uwot]

-Imp

Preventing criminals getting guns is in practise impossible, but professional criminals rarely go on shooting sprees. It is a good deal easier limiting the access nutters have to them.

[bobevenson]

The government already ensures that children receive a minimum amount of food, clothing, shelter and education, or they are forcibly put into another environment. Expensive schools are a sham to begin with, but if rich people want to send their children to them, so what?

Yes, but if the government insists on minimum standards of education, you cannot have the free market you espouse. If, as you say, children 'should' have a minimum amount, someone has to ensure that happens. There is no profit in teaching children of parents who are unwilling or unable to pay. Expensive schools work, because they ensure the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. If you think it right that some children, because of their background have to work much harder than others to achieve, then, so nothing. Personally, I think it is a waste of resources, because inevitably, people are not where they are purely on merit.

For instance, various churches run their own schools. I don't know what control the government has over them, but in a free educational market, the same rules would apply. I understand your feeling that every child should have the best education possible, and believe me, this can be accomplished at very low cost in the free market if the government kept its goddamn nose out of it.

[bobevenson]

Preventing criminals getting guns is in practise impossible, but professional criminals rarely go on shooting sprees. It is a good deal easier limiting the access nutters have to them.

Yes, go ahead and discriminate against everybody who has some kind of mental issue, but is not any more likely to go on a shooting spree than anybody else. That's another leftist moronic approach.

[uwot]

Yes, go ahead and discriminate against everybody who has some kind of mental issue, but is not any more likely to go on a shooting spree than anybody else. That's another leftist moronic approach.

That's a fair point, I don't believe people with 'some kind of mental issue' are more likely to go on shooting sprees than people in a good state of mental health, but there is a specific mental health issue that makes a very small number of people dangerous; the one that triggers the belief that murdering people is something they need to do.

[bobevenson]

Yes, go ahead and discriminate against everybody who has some kind of mental issue, but is not any more likely to go on a shooting spree than anybody else. That's another leftist moronic approach.

That's a fair point, I don't believe people with 'some kind of mental issue' are more likely to go on shooting sprees than people in a good state of mental health, but there is a specific mental health issue that makes a very small number of people dangerous; the one that triggers the belief that murdering people is something they need to do.

Unfortunately, it has been unfairly drummed into the heads of people that anybody with a mental issue is dangerous and should not be allowed access to guns. Everybody should have access to guns, even people who have been convicted of gun crimes in the past. If somebody commits a crime with a bat, should he be denied playing baseball?

[uwot]

Unfortunately, it has been unfairly drummed into the heads of people that anybody with a mental issue is dangerous and should not be allowed access to guns. Everybody should have access to guns, even people who have been convicted of gun crimes in the past. If somebody commits a crime with a bat, should he be denied playing baseball?

No, but I think it would be reasonable to insist that they don't routinely walk down the street with a bat. I think the public is entitled to ask that people with a history of gun crime are very closely monitored. It may be leftist of me, but I think a person's right not to have their head blown off trumps another person's right to carry the means to do so.