If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The 10 GCSEs is irrelevant. The point is that in almost every case, the standard of education offered by one parent is going to be far lower than 10 teachers all specialised in their particular field. This denies children opportunities in their future.
Not necessarily,that would depend on your legal status,or more appropriately, the child's legal status.
Are you claiming that 10 subjects at GCSE level is the be all and end all of a child's education ? (Or would you consider that an impertinent/strawman question ?)
Personal question (so feel free to tell me to mind my own business) :
Do you homeschool ?
Already answered
Blame it on my institutionalisation/education.
No, I'd say that social skills are quite important too. Now who d'you think would be best placed to teach those skills?
Depends on what you mean by social skills, and the context for their usage ?
(For example, I would guess the best person to teach social skills appropriate for the army would be a drill sergeant).
I wasn't talking about population...
That's all deaths by firearms. That can include just a gun going off on a shooting range. Not sure what England statistic you're comparing it to, but if you read earlier, I demonstrated that actual gun violence in the U.S. is actually less likely in states with no (or low) gun control with those states having lower homicide rates than many European countries.
I think a lot of you who are responding to me are reading one area of a particular post and skipping/skimming the others, which is making me have to repeat myself a lot...
Yes you were. You mentioned the populations of the USA, the EU and Europe. Why would land area be even slightly relevant to anything?
I agree with this, but being taught in state schools means there is an oportunity for all children whatever their capabilities maybe.
There are plenty of kids out there who struggle right through their school years with acedemic work but a good school that is not obsessed with results just so that they can attract the next lot of fee paying students will make sure that these children are given other less traditional qualifications to take out into the work place.
I still believe there is much more to school than just exam results and i am not sure private schools or home education can provide that.
All I have to say to that is:
You have clearly not been to my high school .
Well, population/land area gives an indication of population density; which in turn gives an indication of urbanisation. Gun crime tends to be higher in urban areas.
But I don't think there's much to be gained from communicating with someone that argues that gun crime in the UK is worse than in the US.
Nope, but I was homeschooled for a bit, also went to private and state schools.
As the recipient, which did you prefer/enjoy ? And which did you consider the most beneficial to yourself ?
Tory!
Isn't it
state school socialist
home school liberal
private school tory
public school toff
Homeschool was best for enjoying drug taking in my free time, is that what you mean by 'enjoy'? Chortle.
You're telling me what I was talking about? I will quote my original post:
I said it was a bigger country. I said the individual states were larger. Not more populated. I mentioned nothing about population in that entire paragraph. Or the paragraph above that. And Teagan said nothing about population in the quote that that was a response to.
When did I even say that? I knew you didn't pay attention or look at the facts, but now you're out-and-out lying.
Which, I am sure, would be a massive consolation to the family of the deceased.
Because every family of someone who dies in a car accident means we should ban cars, right?
Maybe, but I've never tried to drive a gun to work so I'm not sure if that would be a useful alternative.
The argument was that having lax gun laws increases risk of death by gun. Those figures suggest it's a magnitude of 20 fold increase. I'd say that was a risk not worth taking, for the benefits you realise.
I accept that others have a different view. They're just wrong
I don't know how many schools still do this, but I also have an issue with pushing prayer and singing the national anthem in assemblies.
I think it's good to have kids learning about others' religion and culture, but not to have schools entirely focussed on one religion or another. I have an issue with the fact that my brother was told that it's OK for him to be gay, but that the Bible teaches he will go to hell if he ever acts on his feelings. I think that can be quite distressing for a kid.
The point of my car analogy was that you're stating that the family of the victim of an accent is a viable argument on why we should ban guns (it's not). The same can be said about cars, which result in far more deaths per year than guns. (Accidents by firearms ranks seventh on this list, which even has an anti-gun author.) You wanna see what that all amounts to?
Click here. (it's google cache because for some reason the link isn't working to the actual website.)
0.3 and I'll even give you the 0.1 of undetermined intent to level it up to a whopping 0.4 -- a single fraction of a percent more than your risk of dying from bronchitis (which means without undetermined intent, your risk of dying from an accidental gunshot is the equivalent of dying from bronchitis). Ou, scary.
And again, even in the cases of the accidental gun deaths that do occur -- are we certain that those guns were legal?
Should also be noted that suicide is also included in the statistics on StateMaster, which is a very unfair argument because they just as well may have killed themselves via a noose. And before you say "Well, the gun entices them to do so", that's nonsense. If that were the case, suicide rates in the United States would be much higher than they would be in other countries. Obviously not the case.
Need further proof? Of course you do.
Look at Japan. No guns, more suicides than the combined rate of homicides AND suicides in America.
This is why I originally used stats that focused on homicides rather than the amalgamation of all firearm related deaths. And we still have no way of determining if those suicides were done with legally obtained firearms.
I pointed out that whether the firearm related death was intentional or an accident is irrelevant, it's still a completely avoidable death if the gun wasn't there in the first place. In fact the risk reduces by a factor of 20. Which is why I mentioned the benefits of the car. I can't see that having a gun would get me to work, for example.
You don't suppose that the number of legal guns would have an impact on the general availability of illegal ones too?
How many of those Japanese deaths were by firearm though?
Also, isn't the a cultural issue here too?
You might want to look at this:
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport
Well, I can't see a car shooting an intruder in my house in the head, so we're even.
Not really, no. Because criminals are going to get their guns anyway. A law abiding citizen may have their gun, but they don't go around blasting peoples' heads off with it like an overanxious five year old. This goes back to "If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns."
You obviously missed the entire point.
Look at the dates. The sources we've been using are more up to date. And you even garnered it from an impartial source like Gun Control Network. Though, I'm not really sure the point you're trying to make anyway as I've already tackled the homicide rates as well as the suicide rates (and even the accidental death rates.)
Side note: lol homocide
I'm curious when the goal post is going to stop being moved.
Neither can I, but I've never had an intruder in my house. I have to go to work every day though.
ETA: This may be because in 2009, there were 76,000 burglaries in the UK (source: Office for National Statistics), whilst in the US there were 2.1m (source US Bureau of Justice), remember that the US has 5x UK population.
Maybe the issue isn't guns, maybe it's just general lawlessness
I drive just over 20,000 miles per year. I have been driving now for over 20 years. Never killed anyone, never been killed.
Only once have I been in a position where I might have used a gun. The kick in the nuts I gave him was enough.
I'd say that my car was therefore much more useful than any gun would have been. Again, I repeat, risk vs benefit.
Bet their gun never helped them get shopping/to work etc though