Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Where do you stand politically?

1457910

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Na, you don't have to have inspections. I don't agree with the idea that all children NEED to be taught ten subects to GCSE level to be taken the academic year they turn 16 - it seems pretty silly to me. Sure, have the standard test so that people can be compared but, everyone learning the same stuff at the same time just seems absurd to me.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe not, but when homeschooling, I believe you still get inspections from ofsted to ensure that you're meeting the requirements and giving your child a rounded education.

    Not necessarily,that would depend on your legal status,or more appropriately, the child's legal status.
    But I can't believe there is any parent with the time and expertise to be able to teach 10 subjects to GCSE level, for example.

    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 ?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    @Katralla

    Personal question (so feel free to tell me to mind my own business) :

    Do you homeschool ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 ?)

    Already answered
    The 10 GCSEs is irrelevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Already answered

    Blame it on my institutionalisation/education. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you claiming that 10 subjects at GCSE level is the be all and end all of a child's 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? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Erm yeah. England has twice as many people as Texas.

    I wasn't talking about population...
    Death from firearms in the UK 0.4 per 100,000 population

    Texas... 11.0

    Interestingly the lowest rate is in Hawaii with 2.8 whilst DC is highest with 31.2

    Just as an aside.

    Source

    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...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wasn't talking about population...

    Yes you were. You mentioned the populations of the USA, the EU and Europe. Why would land area be even slightly relevant to anything?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Na, you don't have to have inspections. I don't agree with the idea that all children NEED to be taught ten subects to GCSE level to be taken the academic year they turn 16 - it seems pretty silly to me. Sure, have the standard test so that people can be compared but, everyone learning the same stuff at the same time just seems absurd to me.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    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.

    All I have to say to that is:

    :lol:

    You have clearly not been to my high school ;).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes you were. You mentioned the populations of the USA, the EU and Europe. Why would land area be even slightly relevant to anything?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    @Katralla

    Personal question (so feel free to tell me to mind my own business) :

    Do you homeschool ?

    Nope, but I was homeschooled for a bit, also went to private and state schools.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    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 ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Nope, but I was homeschooled for a bit, also went to private and state schools.

    Tory! ;):p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Tory! ;):p

    Isn't it
    state school socialist
    home school liberal
    private school tory
    public school toff
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As the recipient, which did you prefer/enjoy ? And which did you consider the most beneficial to yourself ?

    Homeschool was best for enjoying drug taking in my free time, is that what you mean by 'enjoy'? Chortle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes you were. You mentioned the populations of the USA, the EU and Europe. Why would land area be even slightly relevant to anything?

    You're telling me what I was talking about? I will quote my original post:
    It should also be noted that the United States is a much bigger country than the U.K. and most of its individual states are larger than England, alone. As such, the rate of anything is going to be substantially higher. A more accurate argument would be comparing U.S. violence to all of Europe.

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's all deaths by firearms. That can include just a gun going off on a shooting range.

    Which, I am sure, would be a massive consolation to the family of the deceased. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Do you think all children should have to go to state schools then, or do you think home school or private tutors is ok?
    I don't really have an issue with home-schooling, just the state funding of religious schools.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I already covered the death by homicide stats, though it seems that most of the people still arguing with me haven't read a single link I've posted and are simply cherry picking at this point. But...

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    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.
    And again, even in the cases of the accidental gun deaths that do occur -- are we certain that those guns were legal?

    You don't suppose that the number of legal guns would have an impact on the general availability of illegal ones too?
    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.

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    Well, I can't see a car shooting an intruder in my house in the head, so we're even. :)
    You don't suppose that the number of legal guns would have an impact on the general availability of illegal ones too?

    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."
    How many of those Japanese deaths were by firearm though?

    You obviously missed the entire point.
    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

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, I can't see a car shooting an intruder in my house in the head, so we're even. :)

    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 :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And risk your life every day doing it in a flying death contraption that kills more people a year than any weapon.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And risk your life every day doing it in a flying death contraption that kills more people a year than any weapon.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And hey, I know people who have owned guns for just as long (if not longer) and never killed anyone and never been killed. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And hey, I know people who have owned guns for just as long (if not longer) and never killed anyone and never been killed. :D

    Bet their gun never helped them get shopping/to work etc though :D
Sign In or Register to comment.