# Dear America, this is how you became obsessed with guns........



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

How nice of Ms. Lopez to "know" why people purchase weapons........

She is so smart, don't ya know............

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-america-became-obsessed-with-guns-2016-7


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Ain't no link there, nohow.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Ain't no link there, nohow.


Whoops here it is....
How America became obsessed with guns - Business Insider


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

One can surely make the argument that America became more obsessed with guns for self defense than it was 20 years ago, simply because of the government's and police departments demonstrated inability to protect us more completely. Nothing against the police, they surely try, but they are too few to be effective. The government has taken the approach that removing guns from the general population will make us all safer, but we know from experience that we will be less safe because the criminals will never give up their guns. 

Yes, gun sales are soaring, but it is because of the realization that we can not rely on the government or police to protect us, we have to be responsible for it ourselves. The writer seems to place blame on the NRA and gun manufacturers for creating a climate of fear that is spurring gun sales, but I think she needs to wake up and smell the coffee. It's BECAUSE we can't rely on the government or police for our personal safety that we are becoming more self reliant in that regard. I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Gun sales are up because people distrust the government, as well they should. 

Voters may pretend to accept a political narrative and use that as an excuse to vote for a second-rate candidate that seems to favor what they want. But, the majority of folks will still seek the means to defend the lives of the people they care about, when the evidence that the government wants to deprive them of that right is obvious. So, they react to anti-gun rhetoric by purchasing more guns and ammo.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

One of Obama's, and the rest of the left's, favorite cries is that firearms are so easy to get. Now for the criminally minded this has a ring of truth to it. But that has always been the case with that segment of the population. What Obama and his minions decry is that firearms are too easy to get for the law abiding... much easier than ever. Well this is patently untrue; an outright lie.

When I was a child growing up in the 50's, firearms were common place and easy to buy at a number of places. Gas stations, hardware stores, hobby centers, swap-'n-shop stores, department stores, sports stores, through catalogs, and even drug stores. And no back ground checks of any kind were needed. Just pay the agreed upon price and take your purchase home. No muss, no fuss.

So how is it that waiting periods, in some places, and back ground checks are easier than what I just described above? Simple. Those making these claims were not alive back then. And even if some were, they are not about to alter their stance since to do so would kill that plank of their argument.


----------



## noway2 (Jun 18, 2011)

They choose to see you, a gun owning citizen, as no different than the criminal. The difference is obvious: in a WROL situation, one would be taking advantage of the situation by raping, stealing, and pillaging. The other would not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> When I was a child growing up in the 50's, firearms were common place and easy to buy at a number of places. Gas stations, hardware stores, hobby centers, swap-'n-shop stores, department stores, sports stores, through catalogs, and even drug stores. And no back ground checks of any kind were needed. Just pay the agreed upon price and take your purchase home. No muss, no fuss.


I grew up at the same time. I think I remember seeing rifles in the Sears catalogs? Mail order.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

RK3369 said:


> I grew up at the same time. I think I remember seeing rifles in the Sears catalogs? Mail order.


Yup.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

In fact, isn't that how Lee Harvey Oswald bought the rifle he used to kill Kennedy? Wasn't it though a mail order catalog or some way like that?

That was basically how the Feds put the ban on mail order sales, wasn't it?

found this on the internet, so it's gotta be true, right?

Lee Harvey Oswald used a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle, serial number C2766. The rifle was equipped with a 4x Hollywood brand scope. The military surplus rifle and scope were sold through Klein's Sporting Goods Company by mail order.


----------



## Philco (Apr 17, 2012)

I remember my mother saving Top Value stamps she got from the grocery (similar to S&H Green Stamps) and using those stamps to pay for a Model 37 Winchester shotgun for my dad. She placed her order and then had to go back to pick up the shotgun from their stamp redemption center. No forms to fill out, no waiting period, no background check. Just lots of stamps. 

Now 50 plus years later, that shotgun is mine.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Philco said:


> I remember my mother saving Top Value stamps she got from the grocery (similar to S&H Green Stamps) and using those stamps to pay for a Model 37 Winchester shotgun for my dad. She placed her order and then had to go back to pick up the shotgun from their stamp redemption center. No forms to fill out, no waiting period, no background check. Just lots of stamps.
> 
> Now 50 plus years later, that shotgun is mine.


Probably far better than what they are making today.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

> While it was standing up for hunters, the NRA was also nurturing an emerging segment of gun owners. People were purchasing weapons for protection - *spurred by the creation of a gun culture based on fear.*


Based on fear, huh? I wonder why that is and who's responsible for it? It sure as hell ain't the gun industry or the NRA.

You're damn right it's based on fear.

Fear of our own government and the abolition of Constitutional Law to a bunch of corrupt criminal politicians who wish to enslave us to their Socialist agenda.

Fear of those who wish to punish the innocent while rewarding the guilty. By criminalizing their lawful activities and the unjust confiscation of their lawfully held property. All with the stroke of a pen and without due process.

Fear of our once great country becoming a Balkanized nation through illegal immigration and multiculturalism.

Fear of losing our language, heritage, culture and history.

Fear of losing our 1st Amendment rights through political correctness.

Fear of thousand's of refugees from countries that harbor terrorists being allowed to come to our shores by a government who's duty it is to protect us.

Fear of a corrupt criminal justice system that releases tens of thousands of career violent felons and the mentally unstable on our streets. While at the same time trying to disarm us.

Fear that our government is no longer a government for and by the people.

Fear of a government composed of career politicians who's only interest is using their political power to enrich themselves and their cronies. While the rest of the country goes to hell in a hand basket.

Fear of being told how we should live, the type of house we should live in, the cars we should drive, the food we should eat.

Fear of having every aspect of our lives being dictated by an overbearing authoritarian statist form of government.

Fear of becoming the next Venezuela.

Fear of losing the quality of life that we have become so accustomed to.

Fear of socialized government controlled medical care.

Fear of a federal court system that puts politics ahead of principle. One that tears up the Bill of Rights. One that determines what the meaning of the "word is, is".

Fear of that pathological lying bitch becoming president and stacking the courts with her cronies.

Fear of constantly being lied to for political gain.

Fear of being taxed into oblivion to support a burgeoning class of impoverished illegal invaders and those who think that this country owes them something.

No it's not the gun industry or the NRA that generates fear. It's people such as the author of this article and the type government and political party they support that generates fear. Yet they can't understand why we cling to our guns and God given civil liberties? And will fight like hell to preserve them.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

RK3369 said:


> In fact, isn't that how Lee Harvey Oswald bought the rifle he used to kill Kennedy? Wasn't it though a mail order catalog or some way like that?...The military surplus rifle and scope were sold through Klein's Sporting Goods Company by mail order.


Yup.
It's the truth.


----------



## Swampguy (Jun 23, 2016)

I am probably a good bit older than most of the folks on this forum, and I disagree with the article. 

When I grew up, almost everyone I knew had firearms in their homes, mostly shotguns and .22 rifles, but some also had pistols for protection. We used them to protect livestock, but also for hunting AND protection. I think I was about 9 years old when I got my Daisy BB gun and just about every kid I knew had one. My first firearm was a 16 gauge shotgun that I ordered from a Sears catalogue. I was 14 and fibbed about my age. My second gun was a bolt action .22 rifle ordered from a Montgomery Ward catalogue for around $15. I earned the money by picking cotton, cutting grass and doing odd jobs for neighbors. I was 15 then. I put a lot of duck, dove, quail, and squirrels in the pot. A few years later I bought a semi-automatic .22 rifle and two .22 pistols, again from Sears. Almost every kid I knew either had a gun of their own or had access to one. Wish I had a dime for every cap I popped just as a kid. I remember buying .22 bullets for 35 cents a box at a little grocery store down the road. Ripped up a lot of tin cans too. Later, when legally old enough, I bought a 30.06 rifle at Sears and added many deer to the menu. Many magazines had ads in the back and army surplus rifles and pistols could be ordered by mail by simply filling out a form, attaching a check, and shortly a firearm would arrive via the U.S. Mail. Long story short, I have owned scores of rifles, shotguns and pistols. I got into reloading everything I shot and even shot skeet competitively. I have probably fired hundreds of thousands of bullets and shells and not a single one every hurt another person. 

I don't see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

In the 20s and early 30s you could mail order a Thompson sub- machine gun. They advertised to ranchers to protect their herds. Up until the 60s you could mail order purchase guns and ammo or go to the closest store. Grandpa carried a shotgun and pistol every where he went without fail. A few years back a library was renovating and found a Browning 1919 machine gun in the attic. People have had guns for survival and protection from before this country was founded.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

tony pasley said:


> People have had guns for survival and protection from before this country was founded.


if you have a state that does not overwhelm the civilian population with military personnel, that's the way it should be. The government cannot protect everyone every minute of the day. The large majority of the remaining time is left to self defense, as it should be. None of us should surrender our individual rights to the overseeing government, regardless of the stated need to do so.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Weird...... I never bought any of my weapons out of fear........ Guess I am not normal according to Ms. Lopez.....


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Swampguy said:


> I am probably a good bit older than most of the folks on this forum, and I disagree with the article.
> 
> When I grew up, almost everyone I knew had firearms in their homes, mostly shotguns and .22 rifles, but some also had pistols for protection. We used them to protect livestock, but also for hunting AND protection. I think I was about 9 years old when I got my Daisy BB gun and just about every kid I knew had one. My first firearm was a 16 gauge shotgun that I ordered from a Sears catalogue. I was 14 and fibbed about my age. My second gun was a bolt action .22 rifle ordered from a Montgomery Ward catalogue for around $15. I earned the money by picking cotton, cutting grass and doing odd jobs for neighbors. I was 15 then. I put a lot of duck, dove, quail, and squirrels in the pot. A few years later I bought a semi-automatic .22 rifle and two .22 pistols, again from Sears. Almost every kid I knew either had a gun of their own or had access to one. Wish I had a dime for every cap I popped just as a kid. I remember buying .22 bullets for 35 cents a box at a little grocery store down the road. Ripped up a lot of tin cans too. Later, when legally old enough, I bought a 30.06 rifle at Sears and added many deer to the menu. Many magazines had ads in the back and army surplus rifles and pistols could be ordered by mail by simply filling out a form, attaching a check, and shortly a firearm would arrive via the U.S. Mail. Long story short, I have owned scores of rifles, shotguns and pistols. I got into reloading everything I shot and even shot skeet competitively. I have probably fired hundreds of thousands of bullets and shells and not a single one every hurt another person.
> 
> *I don't see what all the fuss is about.*


It's about control.

Governments are inherently evil. They know just one thing and that is to grow. And left unchecked they will continue to grow until they have swallowed up the governed. That's just what they do. History is replete with examples of this. The folly of Man is that he tends to forget and/or ignore the lessons of history, believing that this time, he has found the answer to benevolent government. This will never exist.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

According to a research paper by Harvard Business School titled "The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy," only 0.3% of gun deaths are in mass shootings.
Turns out we're not killing each other in random, horrific masses.* We're killing each other little by little, day by day*. 
Paste from the article

I wish Ms Lopez would have elaborated more on the the above research I pasted in bold text.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

1970's. A kid's dream was a 10/22 or any semiauto .22.

Even with bolt actions, a brick of 500 would disappear in an hour or two.

And this ammo did not just appear, most kids had to do chores, cut grass, or work in some form to get the cash 
[memory is hinting $.50 for a box of 50x .22lr - that was like two lawn mowings to earn]
which could be purchased at the local Western Auto to feed the Marlin your dad bought at Sears. 
Bu then that was when they didn't ask your age, until some genius figured .22lr also fit pistols.

We would of had pistols if we were old enough.

But Why? Shooting was fun. Seeing soda cans leap into the air, being able to tag a house fly on a post..... or as some of us had access to farm land,
bagging a varmint or small game for the first time.

Obcessed, really, or were they just plain cool considering the years of WWII shows [Rat Patrol anyone?] and westerns we were exposed to.

Yet in all this, there was fear. 
Fear of parents if you should even take the real .22 out of the house. 
Fear of having the stock broken over your backside for goofing off with the rifle.
Fear of so much as a suspicious look from a policeman. [they were honored and respected when I was a kid]

***this is the right kind of fear that is disappearing today***

Nowadays, if there is fear, its induced by the media.
The violence everywhere.
The irresponsibility in government
The mass protest that become license to destroy
The presence of twisted elements bent on killing for some form of glory [which the media grants in abundance]

Blame the NRA? Hardly. They have been the source of gun safety since day one.
Blame the ILA? In a way fighting liberal fire with conservative fire is a proven methodology, yet I don't like it.
Blame the gun industry?

That's like the Non Sequitur of the obese guy suing the McLunch supersizer for his own bad dietary choices.

Most gun owners I know feel since those responsible for our societal safety refuse to be accountable,
We must take care of ourselves.

And its not fear....

its wisdom that pushes us to equip ourselves to meet the threats such administrative and social carelessness breeds.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> It's about control.
> 
> Governments are inherently evil. They know just one thing and that is to grow. And left unchecked they will continue to grow until they have swallowed up the governed. That's just what they do. History is replete with example of this. The folly of Man is that he tends to forget and/or ignore the lessons of history, believing that this time, he has found the answer to benevolent government. This will never exist.


Outstanding, "SB"!


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

RK3369 said:


> One can surely make the argument that America became more obsessed with guns for self defense than it was 20 years ago, simply because of the government's and police departments demonstrated inability to protect us more completely. Nothing against the police, they surely try, but they are too few to be effective.


The police are too few to protect us - because it's our own fault. The old adage "you get what you pay for" rules, and we've been bombarded by the calls for lower taxes for years. Your local taxes pay for police, just like your property taxes pay for your schools. We all yell for better schools, but also demand lower property taxes. Now one of us want wasteful spending with our taxes, but in general because we keep cutting taxes, we have to cut things that taxes pay for. Do you want your kid to go to the very best public schools? With the best teachers? Then you need to pay property taxes to support that. Likewise the police. They can't be everywhere when we cut budgets with every tax season. So in truth, we're our own worst enemies.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Scorpion8 said:


> The police are too few to protect us - because it's our own fault. The old adage "you get what you pay for" rules, and we've been bombarded by the calls for lower taxes for years. Your local taxes pay for police, just like your property taxes pay for your schools. We all yell for better schools, but also demand lower property taxes. Now one of us want wasteful spending with our taxes, but in general because we keep cutting taxes, we have to cut things that taxes pay for. Do you want your kid to go to the very best public schools? With the best teachers? Then you need to pay property taxes to support that. Likewise the police. They can't be everywhere when we cut budgets with every tax season. So in truth, we're our own worst enemies.


The problem is that federal, state and local governments are a monopoly. There is no accountability as to how our tax dollars are being spent. Just imagine if you had an endless resource of money at your disposal. How concerned would you be if a few million/billion was wasted here and there when there's plenty more of where that came from? The government has the ability to put a gun to our heads and say: "fork it over or else". The problem with governments is that there is no competition therefore there is no incentive for it to be run efficiently.

Politicians are beholden to the teacher's and public employees unions granting them generous benefit plans that the public can not afford to pay for. Which gradually bankrupts the communities that they have been elected to represent. Once out of office they wipe their hands clean leaving all of these problems to the next administration. I once worked for my local public works department and belonged to both the CSEA and AFSCME. Their motto should have been: "ask and ye shall receive" as public officials danced to their tune. I can't tell you how many times we were standing around doing nothing as there were just too many people hired for the amount of work that was required for any given job. (Jobs that the private sector could complete in half the time with half the personnel.) Mostly, I believe to bolster and strengthen the union ranks. The more members the unions have the more powerful and demanding they become.

This also applies to the teacher's unions. Their excuse: "It's all for the kids". They want more teachers and smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes means less work for the teachers. More teachers means a more powerful teachers union. Yet the kids even adults today can't even answer simple questions regarding current events or American history. Ever watch "Watters World" where they ask questions to people out on the street? Their answers are startling to say the least. They are the product of our unionized educational system!

The issue with property taxes is that it is not based on a determination of one's ability to pay. They also fall disproportionately on those who own a home or property. Those who do not own property and do not pay a property tax use the same public services as those that do. Landlord's obviously do not pay property taxes as they are passed on to their tenants. Those who live in subsidized housing pay no property taxes yet use the lions share of public services. The only fair way to tax should be based on one's income and sales taxes. This way everyone pays based on their ability to pay and consumption.

Many people if not most, after paying off a 30 year mortgage retire with their incomes drastically reduced. Yet can't afford to stay in their homes because of the property taxes which in some cases are more than their mortgage payment. Obviously property taxes depend on which state you live in. As many move from states where the property taxes are astronomically high to ones that are relatively low.


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

Cait43 said:


> Weird...... I never bought any of my weapons out of fear........ Guess I am not normal according to Ms. Lopez.....


It was the opposite for me. I bought my firearms out of love. Love for the neat little compact machines guns are and also love for my family.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> Politicians are beholden to the teacher's and public employees unions granting them generous benefit plans that the public can not afford to pay for. Which gradually bankrupts the communities that they have been elected to represent. Once out of office they wipe their hands clean leaving all of these problems to the next administration. I once worked for my local public works department and belonged to both the CSEA and AFSCME. Their motto should have been: "ask and ye shall receive" as public officials danced to their tune. I can't tell you how many times we were standing around doing nothing as there were just too many people hired for the amount of work that was required for any given job. (Jobs that the private sector could complete in half the time with half the personnel.) Mostly, I believe to bolster and strengthen the union ranks. The more members the unions have the more powerful and demanding they become.
> 
> This also applies to the teacher's unions. Their excuse: "It's all for the kids". They want more teachers and smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes means less work for the teachers. More teachers means a more powerful teachers union. Yet the kids even adults today can't even answer simple questions regarding current events or American history. Ever watch "Watters World" where they ask questions to people out on the street? Their answers are startling to say the least. They are the product of our unionized educational system!
> 
> The issue with property taxes is that it is not based on a determination of one's ability to pay. They also fall disproportionately on those who own a home or property. Those who do not own property and do not pay a property tax use the same public services as those that do. Landlord's obviously do not pay property taxes as they are passed on to their tenants. Those who live in subsidized housing pay no property taxes yet use the lions share of public services. The only fair way to tax should be based on one's income and sales taxes. This way everyone pays based on their ability to pay and consumption.


I detest the property tax system to support schools. I have no children, have never put a kid in a private school anywhere, yet I have paid school taxes based on my ownership of property for probably 45 years now. There should be a user fee system to pay for our schools, but of course, the biggest users are those who are least able to pay. So once again, the old tradition in this country of "if you can pay for it, you do. If you can't pay, you get it for free" applies to this system, and that is just another form of taxing the higher income earners to support the lower income earners.

Not at all a fair system in my mind, especially when you look at the product that is coming out of the public school systems in this country nowadays.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

desertman said:


> ...*Those who do not own property and do not pay a property tax use the same public services as those that do.* *Landlord's obviously do not pay property taxes as they are passed on to their tenants*...


Um, I think that you're trying to have it both ways at once.
Most people who don't own property are renters. Renters pay property tax as part of their rent, but pay it to the landlord rather than directly to the government.



RK3369 said:


> I detest the property tax system to support schools. I have no children, have never put a kid in a private school anywhere, yet I have paid school taxes based on my ownership of property for probably 45 years now...


The theory is that public schools benefit all of us, even if we don't have children in the system.
Public schools were instituted by the early Progressives (back when they were doing some good) to "civilize" the hordes of incoming, uneducated immigrants from Ireland and Central Europe. The thought was that if the immigrants were forced by penalty of law to send their kids to public school, the educated children would bring American Civilization, as learned in school, back home to their parents.
The scheme worked extremely well, all the way from the late 1800s through the middle 1900s, a total of, maybe, 75 years. My parents, my immigrant first wife (and her parents), our child, and I, too, were all the products of this civilizing influence.
Reasonably-well-educated children do not, for the most part, turn to lives of crime and other asocial behavior. Most immigrants learned our language, our customs, and basic business skills from their publickly-educated children, and they prospered. Thus, even if you were childless, your life benefitted from the enforced public education that your taxes financed.

Of course, thanks to Political Correctness, social and monetary entitlements, and the inability to terminate unionized teachers for poor performance, many segments of our public school system are broken and are not doing their job. Nevertheless, many school systems still do very good work, and do successfully civilize and educate the children that use them.
For the most part, rural and suburban school systems are still worth the money we pay for them. Urban systems? Not so much.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

As a homeschooler, we were appalled at the cost per child of a public school system verses our own costs. 
One would think that a collective education system would be more efficient.

We all benefit from public schools, but politics and organized labor appear to have damaged our school system. 
Indeed there is financial need for many schools especially as they have to cope with bureaucratic mandates that push and cripple their abilities.
But other schools are a funnel of wealth and instead of improving or economizing, simply raise tax revenue for pensions and other unmanaged costs.
Yet if the public cries foul, the admins cut programs to the kids instead of trimming the fat and avoiding mismanagement.

But then schools like government depend on involvement, and it seems for the most part - parents and public have lost control if not let go of the reins completely.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369 said:


> *I detest the property tax system to support schools.* I have no children, have never put a kid in a private school anywhere, yet I have paid school taxes based on my ownership of property for probably 45 years now. There should be a user fee system to pay for our schools, but of course, the biggest users are those who are least able to pay. So once again, the old tradition in this country of "if you can pay for it, you do. If you can't pay, you get it for free" applies to this system, and that is just another form of taxing the higher income earners to support the lower income earners.
> 
> Not at all a fair system in my mind, especially when you look at the product that is coming out of the public school systems in this country nowadays.


I can't really complain about the property taxes out here. They're really not that bad and have been pretty stable. Not so for many other states especially New York. But in general it is blatantly an unfair system as it is an extra tax above all the others that only property owners have to pay. It also contributes to high rental costs.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

> Steve M1911A1;400425]Um, I think that you're trying to have it both ways at once.
> Most people who don't own property are renters. Renters pay property tax as part of their rent, but pay it to the landlord rather than directly to the government.


I should have said those who are living in subsidized housing, siblings who are working and living at home with their parents. I did mention that tenants pay property taxes through their rent. The issue I have is that housing is a necessity just as food. People shouldn't have to be taxed on that whether they own their own home or rent. Second homes and land that is used for profit is another issue.

I believe that some states also tax people on their personal property, vehicles, guns, jewelry, horses, livestock etc. and are required to report it?

Indeed public schools do benefit all of us therefore we all should pay taxes to support it. I'm not arguing that. But it should not fall on the backs of homeowners many of whom do not have any children. Just wait and see what will happen if the government takes over our colleges and universities or the relieving of all student loans. They are already talking about how a college education should be free. Just what we need the expansion of our public educational system to include college. Nothing is free, only for those who do not have to pay for it.

My other issue with public education is the unions who happen to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Now we have an educational system that through propaganda is poisoning young minds into believing that a socialist welfare state is beneficial and preferable to capitalism. They certainly are not teaching Constitutional Law or the fact that we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Don't believe it? Then why have so many young people come out for Sanders? Some may stay home but more than likely will be voting for the pathological lying bitch. As their political philosophies along with the Democrat Parties are one and the same.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

CW said:


> As a homeschooler, we were appalled at the cost per child of a public school system verses our own costs.
> One would think that a collective education system would be more efficient.
> 
> *We all benefit from public schools, but politics and organized labor appear to have damaged our school system.*
> ...


You've hit the nail right on the head! Along with the rest of your post.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> The theory is that public schools benefit all of us, even if we don't have children in the system.
> Public schools were instituted by the early Progressives (back when they were doing some good) to "civilize" the hordes of incoming, uneducated immigrants from Ireland and Central Europe.
> 
> Of course, thanks to Political Correctness, social and monetary entitlements, and the inability to terminate unionized teachers for poor performance, many segments of our public school system are broken and are not doing their job. Nevertheless, many school systems still do very good work, and do successfully civilize and educate the children that use them.
> For the most part, rural and suburban school systems are still worth the money we pay for them. Urban systems? Not so much.


Not sure I agree with the premise. especially with a 40% drop out rate in SC. While I will concede that it is a part of the price we pay for stability of our society, I'm getting tired of paying for it in consideration of the poor job it is doing. Are we the leading country in mathematics, science, technical systems? I don't think we're there any more and it is at least partially due to the substandard product that our public education system turns out. Whatever the root cause, we surely are not getting our money's worth in terms of what we are paying and, once again, I resent paying for something which I receive no perceived value from. Just my opinion. I have no solution for a better product other than we should give the teachers back the authority to institute discipline in the classroom however necessary and without fear of reprisal. I think that is one of the root causes for the decline of the public education system in this country over the past 50 years.


----------



## noway2 (Jun 18, 2011)

desertman said:


> Indeed public schools do benefit all of us therefore we all should pay taxes to support it. I'm not arguing that. But it should not fall on the backs of homeowners many of whom do not have any children. Just wait and see what will happen if the government takes over our colleges and universities or the relieving of all student loans. They are already talking about how a college education should be free. Just what we need the expansion of our public educational system to include college. Nothing is free, only for those who do not have to pay for it.


I have a unique view on this. I believe that college should be free, all the way up through a PhD for those who can and will excel at it. For those few, we, as a society, should be pulling out the stops for them as we will undoubtedly reap the benefits of what they will in turn produce multiple times over. At the same time I think that there are many, even today, who do not belong on this college bound path and we should get them out of the 3R schooling and into a trade program where they will excel. There are still others, the non productive parasite, who we should hand a shovel.


----------



## noway2 (Jun 18, 2011)

Please delete...quoted myself instead of edit post....


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

noway2 said:


> I have a unique view on this. I believe that college should be free, all the way up through a PhD for those who can and will excel at it. For those few, we, as a society, should be pulling out the stops for them as we will undoubtedly reap the benefits of what they will in turn produce multiple times over. At the same time I think that there are many, even today, who do not belong on this college bound path and we should get them out of the 3R schooling and into a trade program where they will excel. There are still others, the non productive parasite, who we should hand a shovel.


Not sure I agree with the free college idea, because most people don't much value what they can get for free. If you want a PhD bad enough you need to work for it and pay for it, not have it given to you without any sacrifice on your part. Bernie Sanders idea of free community college tuition for everybody was basically going to make all minimum wage workers end up with Associates Degrees. And how will they be any better off, or society be any better off? You'll need an Associates degree to get a stocker job at Walmart. I do however agree with the idea that lots of folks should be headed in the direction of the trades schools. Trades people are really hard to find around nowadays. As a result, they are demanding a pretty good rate of pay. 
While I do agree with the idea of handing the "parasites" a shovel, problem is, who is going to call them out? We are too afraid of being PC for that to happen without a major social shift. Great idea, but I dont' see it happening because nobody wants to be the messenger.


----------



## noway2 (Jun 18, 2011)

RK3369 said:


> Not sure I agree with the free college idea, because most people don't much value what they can get for free. If you want a PhD bad enough you need to work for it and pay for it, not have it given to you without any sacrifice on your part. Bernie Sanders idea of free community college tuition for everybody was basically going to make all minimum wage workers end up with Associates Degrees.


There is a world of difference between what I envision and Bernie Sanders talks about. Notice that I said for those few who will excel at it. How much talent are we losing because of affordability? In my previous job, they tried for a couple of years to find an expert in power electronics to help design a new generation industrial UPS. They offered a salary range starting at ~$150k in the ads. They couldn't find anyone qualified at any price and learned that this skill is mostly overseas. I had a conversation with HR at Liebert (major UPS and power quality equipment vendor) and they told me that they had no new development in this area because of lack of skill and we're just rehashing stuff from years ago with fancy front ends.

The problem with approaches like everyone gets an associate degree is that it dilutes the value. Even today a bachelors degree is equivalent to what a high school diploma used to be.

I'm talking about eliminating the barriers for those who will make a much greater contribution to society and the economy. Diluting the value is very contrary to this.



> While I do agree with the idea of handing the "parasites" a shovel, problem is, who is going to call them out? We are too afraid of being PC for that to happen without a major social shift. Great idea, but I dont' see it happening because nobody wants to be the messenger.


Yes, a major shift is required. I do sense were on the brink of one, but which way it will go is still to be determined. I think in the next decade give or take we will reach the point where things can't continue as they are today and we will reach the crisis point. At that time we will either become a society based upon freedom, responsibility, send individualism, or we will descend into a totalitarian communist type state.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

noway2 said:


> I have a unique view on this. *I believe that college should be free*, all the way up through a PhD for those who can and will excel at it. For those few, we, as a society, should be pulling out the stops for them as we will undoubtedly reap the benefits of what they will in turn produce multiple times over. At the same time I think that there are many, even today, who do not belong on this college bound path and we should get them out of the 3R schooling and into a trade program where they will excel. There are still others, the non productive parasite, who we should hand a shovel.


It is not free, the money has to come from somewhere? If those few can get a PhD and excel, more than likely they will be very successful later on once they graduate. At least successful enough where they can well afford to pay back their college loans and then some. If not then I guess they really weren't that smart after all.

The rest of your post I can agree with.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

"Free" is a very plastic term: It can mean many things, depending upon the context.

When *noway2* writes about a "free" college education, he doesn't mean that everybody who _wants_ a college education should have one at no charge.
Rather, he means that anyone who has worked very hard in school, has clearly demonstrated superior intellectual capacity, and who wants to continue with education, may pass the required (difficult) examinations and receive a completely-state-subsidized university education.

We know that this scheme actually does work. Indeed, it's working right now.
Higher education in France is free (under the terms described above). One result is that medical professionals do not need to "milk" their patients, in order to recoup their education expenses. This is how France successfully holds medical costs down.
Another example is my own daughter, who received an invitation to a free-of-charge education from the California university system, and another offer (for a half-free education) from Stanford University. She chose Stanford, and had to work hard to make up the other half.

Yes, we plebeians pay taxes to give these gifted students a "free" education, but the benefit to society as a whole is well beyond price.
Proof: Go for medical care in France. It's good quality at a very low price to both individuals and society.


----------

