The public schools suck thread.

zeppelinfromled said:
No, I don't like that idea. Why? Because a well educated society is a better society. You're welcome to go live outside of society if you'd like, but as long as you expect to be a member of society, you're expected to help (to a reasonable extent) with keeping it going. Do you really think your life would be better if half of the country couldn't afford school for their kids? Do you not care about the society in which you raise your kids? I do. We can do a quick comparison of countries where kids are guaranteed an education and countries where they're not. I would choose to live in one of the countries where they are every single time, and that's not a coincidence.

So how about this: we vote on it and do what the majority thinks is best. Oh wait, that's already what we do.
Click to expand...

Hey, look! Another socialist outed themselves.

Idiot. Keep your socialism... unless you have the conviction required to go house to house with a gun robbing people yourself, don't go asking the government to do it for you. And if you do have the conviction, please, pick my house first.

By the way again... idiot... we aren't a democracy. We're a democratic republic. Learn the difference. Or move to France... entirely up to you.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
No, I don't like that idea. Why? Because a well educated society is a better society. You're welcome to go live outside of society if you'd like, but as long as you expect to be a member of society, you're expected to help (to a reasonable extent) with keeping it going. Do you really think your life would be better if half of the country couldn't afford school for their kids? Do you not care about the society in which you raise your kids? I do. We can do a quick comparison of countries where kids are guaranteed an education and countries where they're not. I would choose to live in one of the countries where they are every single time, and that's not a coincidence.

So how about this: we vote on it and do what the majority thinks is best. Oh wait, that's already what we do.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Now we know where you stand.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
No, I don't like that idea. Why? Because a well educated society is a better society. You're welcome to go live outside of society if you'd like, but as long as you expect to be a member of society, you're expected to help (to a reasonable extent) with keeping it going. Do you really think your life would be better if half of the country couldn't afford school for their kids? Do you not care about the society in which you raise your kids? I do. We can do a quick comparison of countries where kids are guaranteed an education and countries where they're not. I would choose to live in one of the countries where they are every single time, and that's not a coincidence.

So how about this: we vote on it and do what the majority thinks is best. Oh wait, that's already what we do.
Click to expand...

What the majority votes is not always what is best, particularly when it infringes on the rights of others.
 
Lamina said:
Hey, look! Another socialist outed themselves.

Idiot. Keep your socialism... unless you have the conviction required to go house to house with a gun robbing people yourself, don't go asking the government to do it for you. And if you do have the conviction, please, pick my house first.

By the way again... idiot... we aren't a democracy. We're a democratic republic. Learn the difference. Or move to France... entirely up to you.
Click to expand...


economist said:
Awesome. Now we know where you stand.
Click to expand...


Indeed you do. I stand against denying an education to children based on the wealth of their parents. Gasp. I'm fine with people having to live with the mistakes that they've made. If you slacked off in life and didn't make anything for yourself, you don't deserve to be able to take my money. But these are kids you're talking about. You want to deny them the chance to succeed right off the bat. And then you claim the moral high ground. Please. And you have trouble understanding why a majority of people don't take you seriously. It's outlined pretty well right here.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
Indeed you do. I stand against denying an education to children based on the wealth of their parents. Gasp. I'm fine with people having to live with the mistakes that they've made. If you slacked off in life and didn't make anything for yourself, you don't deserve to be able to take my money. But these are kids you're talking about. You want to deny them the chance to succeed right off the bat. And then you claim the moral high ground. Please. And you have trouble understanding why a majority of people don't take you seriously. It's outlined pretty well right here.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, zep, the system of "free public education" that has developed in this country is a bloated, bureaucratic and educationally ineffective political indoctrination camp. The public model is fatally flawed. We are serving society, and our children poorly with it. I think we can do better.
 
I don't think I've actually gotten truly bad advice regarding carry. Or if I did, it didn't stay with me long enough to remember it.
 
If you would rather live in a country that doesn't put a priority on educating its youth, Nigeria awaits.
Click to expand...

There are also countries that don't consider it important to educate every kid to his/her potential, but to make sure the brightest and the best have what they need to become the next generation of doctors, scientists and engineers. (Although law is a similarly learned profession, China, India and Japan are not challenging us in the world because of their crop of law school graduates). Demonstrate the right potential in one of these countries at an early age and you'll get a top notch education at public expense; show you're a dunce or have a "learning disorder" and you won't.

The strategy works to elevate a nation's level of technology (India has had the bomb for years, and if their nuke designers are anything like the Indian engineers or MD's I've dealt with, I would expect their nukes to be excellent), but it does not tend to provide "opportunity for all" as is the alleged goal of the US system. Curiously, India has a political problem with "reservations" - which are affirmative action quotas for govt jobs based on caste.

My point is that there are numerous approaches -

- Public education for all
- Education for those who can afford it, no govt involvement in the process
- Advanced public education for the best and brightest

The first and third had produced superpowers. I'm not sure what nations took the "no involvement" approach and rose to global powers. I'm looking for an example where is has worked; not trying to argue that it won't work.
 
Last edited:
theGringo said:
Unfortunately, zep, the system of "free public education" that has developed in this country is a bloated, bureaucratic and educationally ineffective political indoctrination camp. The public model is fatally flawed. We are serving society, and our children poorly with it. I think we can do better.
Click to expand...

Amen to that........
 
theGringo said:
Unfortunately, zep, the system of "free public education" that has developed in this country is a bloated, bureaucratic and educationally ineffective political indoctrination camp. The public model is fatally flawed. We are serving society, and our children poorly with it. I think we can do better.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm not saying that some overhaul isn't in order or that we have a perfect system. But I don't think that a private system is the answer. I think that it's important for everyone to have at least a basic education, even those whose parents can't afford to send them to private school.


Rob Boudrie said:
There are also countries that don't consider it important to educate every kid to his/her potential, but to make sure the brightest and the best have what they need to become the next generation of doctors, scientists and engineers. (Although law is a similarly learned profession, China, India and Japan are not challenging us in the world because of their crop of law school graduates). Demonstrate the right potential in one of these countries at an early age and you'll get a top notch education at public expense; show you're a dunce or have a "learning disorder" and you won't.

The strategy works to elevate a nation's level of technology (India has had the bomb for years, and if their nuke designers are anything like the Indian engineers or MD's I've dealt with, I would expect their nukes to be excellent), but it does not tend to provide "opportunity for all" as is the alleged goal of the US system. Curiously, India has a political problem with "reservations" - which are affirmative action quotas for govt jobs based on caste.

My point is that there are numerous approaches -

- Public education for all
- Education for those who can afford it, no govt involvement in the process
- Advanced public education for the best and brightest

The first and third had produced superpowers. I'm not sure what nations took the "no involvement" approach and rose to global powers. I'm looking for an example where is has worked; not trying to argue that it won't work.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that every kid should have a top notch education through college and a PhD on the public's dime. I'm saying that it's useful for society if we teach everyone how to read and write, and how to do arithmetic. And maybe a little bit about science, and how the world works. Without this, we would just be raising a generation of kids who have no idea how to live and many of them will probably resort to crime to pay their bills.


Gonzo said:
You don't know all that much about Nigeria, do you? Let me guess, you went to public school?
Click to expand...

I could have picked a better example than Nigeria, although Nigeria doesn't exactly have a stellar literacy rate. They have public education (which is why I chose my words carefully), but fail to deliver it or fund it well enough.
 
economist said:
I think the worst advice is something like "don't draw unless you know you are going to shoot". First, there comes a time when talking is over, a threat is real, and time is everything. Second, things can change very quickly. If the threat stops between draw and fire, then there's no fire. What is terrible about the general statement is that it creates a sense of doubt about drawing a gun in the face of a real threat. And that can get you killed.
Click to expand...

I haven't read through all 11 pages, so I'll admit that if there has been a rebuttal to this I didn't see it, but I think the advice noted here as "bad" is actually pretty good advice. Here's why.

If you aren't legally and ethically justified to squeeze the trigger then you aren't legally and justified to present your weapon. If things happen quickly in your favor (the bad guy turns and runs) obviously you adjust. I'm not saying that if you draw you must shoot. But if you draw you must be of the mind that if nothing changes you will shoot.

Another thing. Once you draw you are "a man with a gun" to all around you. By drawing in a situation where you aren't justified in shooting, you have just given others the legal right to shoot YOU. Here's a crazy example, but it illustrates the point. You come home to find your home being burglarized. You draw, the unarmed burglar immediately turns and runs. You pursue him out into the street. In most states a bystander would now be legally justified in shooting YOU. (man with a gun chasing an unarmed man)

Said another way, if you are presented with a justifiable defensive scenario, your intent should be to draw and shoot as quickly as possible. But if things change even quicker you need to adapt.

Implicit in this is the fact that you do not give verbal warnings or threats. You are not the police. If you are justified in drawing the gun then you should maintain every advantage you can get and that means no warnings. If you think a warning is required, then you probably aren't justified to present the firearm in the first place.

Don
 
Last edited:
I think the worst advice is something like "don't draw unless you know you are going to shoot". First, there comes a time when talking is over, a threat is real, and time is everything. Second, things can change very quickly. If the threat stops between draw and fire, then there's no fire. What is terrible about the general statement is that it creates a sense of doubt about drawing a gun in the face of a real threat. And that can get you killed.
Click to expand...
@economist
Why is it people miss these parts of your post?
 
I didn't miss it. I should have acknowledged it explicitly.

To restate it another way, the idea that you don't draw unless you intend to use the firearm is sound. It just needs a few qualifiers. So its not bad advice.

Also, that sense of doubt is a real concern. A woman is in a dark parking garage at night. She gets in the elevator, a threatening lookng man gets in the elevator.
What does she do?? Simple, nothing as far as the gun is concerned except maybe put her hand on it if its in a purse or pocket. She isn't justified in drawing because a person looks like a bad dude.

The right thing to do is to step out of the elevator. But people won't do that. We've been trained not to follow that flight instinct even when its the best response. Why? If he remains in the elevator it shuts down the situation right then and there. If he steps out, he has communicated his intentions.

Don
 
Last edited:
caboose84 said:
I was looking at a revolver for keeping in the nightstand at home, and had settled on a used 4 inch Ruger GP100... It's a big heavy piece for a 357...

The salesman tried to tell me it would be a great gun for concealed carry...
Click to expand...

Some people carry them, but at 40 ounces unloaded I'll pass [grin]
 
Stormtrooper: Let me see your identification.
Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] You don't need to see his identification.
Stormtrooper: We don't need to see his identification.
Obi-Wan: These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Stormtrooper: These aren't the droids we're looking for.
Obi-Wan: He can go about his business.
Stormtrooper: You can go about your business.
Obi-Wan: Move along.
Stormtrooper: Move along... move along.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
Since the US is on that list, I think I'll stick around actually. If you would rather live in a country that doesn't put a priority on educating its youth, Nigeria awaits.
Click to expand...

Educate your youth with YOUR money. My money is for MY child.

BTW, thanks for outing yourself as another statist/socialist.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
we would just be raising a generation of kids who have no idea how to live and many of them will probably resort to crime to pay their bills.
Click to expand...
Hey! You just described the results of a significant population of US public school graduates.

Functionally illiterate with no ability to think critically.
 
Apparently we have here what I have termed threadollision. (Collision + thread). I started with it early and then look further on at a later time and was confused. Only slightly though due to my relatively good public education.
 
There would have to be A LOT of other things resolved first before eliminating public schools could be made possible. All of which would be a big plus for us, the citizens. First the illegal immigration problem would have to be under control, there would have to be a significantly smaller burden from taxes on the people. In order for that to happen (lower tax burden) there's a whole other list of things that would have to be fixed. Unfortunately for us, I don't see anyone even attempting to fix any of these thing in our near future. I love it when I hear people say "Well, the property taxes here are so high because we have a great public school system".... that's great... but I don't have kids going to school here...and what about the other guy who just rents an apartment and sends his kids to school here. We're in a system now where some people pay for the needs (and "wants") of everyone. I'm personally tired of carrying other people on my back.

If we eliminated public schools tomorrow, it would be a disaster. But there are certain steps that can be taken so that in 5-10 years they COULD be eliminated successfully with hardly any "kids left behind".
 
Jose said:
Hey! You just described the results of a significant population of US public school graduates.

Functionally illiterate with no ability to think critically.
Click to expand...

Sure, an overhaul of the system might be in order. I would never say otherwise.


Jose said:
Why do you keep equating private education with "rich people only"?
Click to expand...

...because private schools tend to be expensive....
 
zeppelinfromled said:
Sure, an overhaul of the system might be in order. I would never say otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, there should be no public education.

zeppelinfromled said:
...because private schools tend to be expensive....
Click to expand...
That's because there isn't enough competition. Half of all the tax you pay goes to public education. Can you imagine having an extra $20,000 a year to send your child or children to one of the now many private schools because everybody now has money to spend on them and there are a lot more of them to choose from?

Where teachers can actually be fired for being worthless and they don't suck up 80% of an inflated salary for 20 years when they retire.
 

Similar threads

SWAT team responding to Arkansas shopping mall, police ask public to avoid the area: Officials called it “an incident that is active"
Replies
5
Views
231
TJ4
T
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
220
Coyote33
Coyote33
Has anyone heard of the Safari Club International New England Foundation? They have a gun auction/banquet open to the public April 27th in Newton, MA!
Replies
25
Views
797
Lord0fWar
L
Shots fired in Hyannis, nearby schools are told to shelter in place.
2
Replies
36
Views
836
rogersmithiii
R
Utah CCL Renewal...we really suck !!!
Replies
26
Views
771
allen-1
allen-1
Back
Top Bottom