[all]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=EconProf]CA prisoners cost the state $51,000 per year.[/quote]

In other words, we spend about as much on a single prisoner as we do per teacher in a classroom with 25+ students.[/quote]

Adjusted for cost of living, California spends $7,571 per student, compared to $9,963 per student nationally.
California slips a notch in per pupil expenditures

I taught high school Math for a year fresh out of college. The pay was less than half of what I made in the first year of my next job, the kids were annoying and the parents were worse.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=EconProf]CA prisoners cost the state $51,000 per year.[/quote]

In other words, we spend about as much on a single prisoner as we do per teacher in a classroom with 25+ students.[/quote]

Adjusted for cost of living, California spends $7,571 per student, compared to $9,963 per student nationally.
California slips a notch in per pupil expenditures

I taught high school Math for a year fresh out of college. The pay was less than half of what I made in the first year of my next job, the kids were annoying and the parents were worse.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=EconProf]CA prisoners cost the state $51,000 per year.[/quote]

In other words, we spend about as much on a single prisoner as we do per teacher in a classroom with 25+ students.[/quote]

Adjusted for cost of living, California spends $7,571 per student, compared to $9,963 per student nationally.
California slips a notch in per pupil expenditures

I taught high school Math for a year fresh out of college. The pay was less than half of what I made in the first year of my next job, the kids were annoying and the parents were worse.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=EconProf]CA prisoners cost the state $51,000 per year.[/quote]

In other words, we spend about as much on a single prisoner as we do per teacher in a classroom with 25+ students.[/quote]

Adjusted for cost of living, California spends $7,571 per student, compared to $9,963 per student nationally.
California slips a notch in per pupil expenditures

I taught high school Math for a year fresh out of college. The pay was less than half of what I made in the first year of my next job, the kids were annoying and the parents were worse.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=EconProf]CA prisoners cost the state $51,000 per year.[/quote]

In other words, we spend about as much on a single prisoner as we do per teacher in a classroom with 25+ students.[/quote]

Adjusted for cost of living, California spends $7,571 per student, compared to $9,963 per student nationally.
California slips a notch in per pupil expenditures

I taught high school Math for a year fresh out of college. The pay was less than half of what I made in the first year of my next job, the kids were annoying and the parents were worse.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[all]

Did you provision for illegally owned firearm? Or do Black people use eye gouging and testicular kicks to kill each other in DC? Once the authorities in Chicago and D.C. see this analysis they’ll solve their problem by arming everyone.

Ex-scaredy asked if a gun in every hand would make everyone feel safer. I say it might make people feel safe, but it will not truly make them safe. Instead, disturbed people (and apparently big bad black dudes not involved with NFL or NBA) will have a tool to project their disturbance onto soccer moms with three kids on the back seat and a gun in the attic safe.

I totally get TG’s “that’s the way I like it and if you don’t like that it’s your problem, not mine” position. But I don’t think adults need to pretend that somehow their toys are what’s keeping them safe.

[all]

Did you provision for illegally owned firearm? Or do Black people use eye gouging and testicular kicks to kill each other in DC? Once the authorities in Chicago and D.C. see this analysis they’ll solve their problem by arming everyone.

Ex-scaredy asked if a gun in every hand would make everyone feel safer. I say it might make people feel safe, but it will not truly make them safe. Instead, disturbed people (and apparently big bad black dudes not involved with NFL or NBA) will have a tool to project their disturbance onto soccer moms with three kids on the back seat and a gun in the attic safe.

I totally get TG’s “that’s the way I like it and if you don’t like that it’s your problem, not mine” position. But I don’t think adults need to pretend that somehow their toys are what’s keeping them safe.

[all]

Did you provision for illegally owned firearm? Or do Black people use eye gouging and testicular kicks to kill each other in DC? Once the authorities in Chicago and D.C. see this analysis they’ll solve their problem by arming everyone.

Ex-scaredy asked if a gun in every hand would make everyone feel safer. I say it might make people feel safe, but it will not truly make them safe. Instead, disturbed people (and apparently big bad black dudes not involved with NFL or NBA) will have a tool to project their disturbance onto soccer moms with three kids on the back seat and a gun in the attic safe.

I totally get TG’s “that’s the way I like it and if you don’t like that it’s your problem, not mine” position. But I don’t think adults need to pretend that somehow their toys are what’s keeping them safe.

[all]

Did you provision for illegally owned firearm? Or do Black people use eye gouging and testicular kicks to kill each other in DC? Once the authorities in Chicago and D.C. see this analysis they’ll solve their problem by arming everyone.

Ex-scaredy asked if a gun in every hand would make everyone feel safer. I say it might make people feel safe, but it will not truly make them safe. Instead, disturbed people (and apparently big bad black dudes not involved with NFL or NBA) will have a tool to project their disturbance onto soccer moms with three kids on the back seat and a gun in the attic safe.

I totally get TG’s “that’s the way I like it and if you don’t like that it’s your problem, not mine” position. But I don’t think adults need to pretend that somehow their toys are what’s keeping them safe.

[all]

Did you provision for illegally owned firearm? Or do Black people use eye gouging and testicular kicks to kill each other in DC? Once the authorities in Chicago and D.C. see this analysis they’ll solve their problem by arming everyone.

Ex-scaredy asked if a gun in every hand would make everyone feel safer. I say it might make people feel safe, but it will not truly make them safe. Instead, disturbed people (and apparently big bad black dudes not involved with NFL or NBA) will have a tool to project their disturbance onto soccer moms with three kids on the back seat and a gun in the attic safe.

I totally get TG’s “that’s the way I like it and if you don’t like that it’s your problem, not mine” position. But I don’t think adults need to pretend that somehow their toys are what’s keeping them safe.

[Author]

Posts