Guns are not the cause of gun violence...prosecutors and judges who release gun criminals are...

[frigidweirdo]

and more on Switzerland and Sweden...

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The suicide rate, though, is almost double the American rate. Guns are used in about one-fifth of all Swiss suicides compared to three-fifths of American and one-third of Canadian suicides.

It is not Switzerland's cultural makeup, or its gun policies per se, that explain that low crime rate. Rather, it is the emphasis on community duty, of which gun ownership is the most important part, that best explains low crime rate.

In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive. The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity. One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area. Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.

Proud to have the weakest central government in the West, Switzerlan is governed mainly by its 3,095 Einwohrnergemeinde (communes, sub-states of a canton). Several cantons still make their laws by the traditional Landsgemeinden system, whereby all eligible voters assemble in annual outdoor meetings.

Unlike the rest of Europe, the police force is decentralised. Judges and jurors are popularly elected. With less mobility, and more deeply developed community ties, there is less crime.

Most democratic nations impose long prison terms more frequently than does America, but Switzerland does not. For all crimes except murder, the Swiss rarely inflict a prison term of more than a year; most serious offenders receive suspended sentences. As in Japan, the focus of the criminal justice system is on the reintegration of the offender into the community, rather than punishment.

Who wrote this exactly?

 

[jon_berzerk]

I've always been a big proponent of 25 years no parol if you commit a crime with a gun.
If you discharge it and no one dies you get 50 years no parol.
Kill someone? Get your affairs in order.

violent crimes should do long term prison regardless of the involvement of a firearm

and murder is murder

why should someone get life for slicing someones throat wide open

while a bullet hole through the gut brings the death sentence

 

[2aguy]

I would vote out democrats...give the Americans vouchers for education...focus jails and prisons on locking up violent gun criminals for long periods of time, instead of letting them out, which is what causes our current gun murder and violence problem...I would look at decriminalizing drug crimes....but would have to look at it more deeply........and get rid of gun free zones......that would be where I would start...

So you'd have worse education, higher crime, pay more for people in prison rather than working and paying taxes and all that stuff.

You really haven't learnt a thing from being on here have you?

Did you see the part about Louisiana being high prison population, high crime state? Did you not figure out that it doesn't work?

Also, vouchers do nothing for education other than take money OUT of the system and give it to rich people.

So you are saying letting violent sociopaths who are responsible for almost all of the violence run around free is the solution to crime....you are a real genius.......

Richmond California, a place with a population of just over 100,000 has about 17 known criminals who are responsible for 76% of their shootings.......lock them up and guess what, their crime rate goes down about 76%.....

vouchers will improve education for the poor, who are trapped in democrat run schools that aren't educating them....

 

[2aguy]

and more on Switzerland and Sweden...

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The suicide rate, though, is almost double the American rate. Guns are used in about one-fifth of all Swiss suicides compared to three-fifths of American and one-third of Canadian suicides.

It is not Switzerland's cultural makeup, or its gun policies per se, that explain that low crime rate. Rather, it is the emphasis on community duty, of which gun ownership is the most important part, that best explains low crime rate.

In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive. The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity. One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area. Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.

Proud to have the weakest central government in the West, Switzerlan is governed mainly by its 3,095 Einwohrnergemeinde (communes, sub-states of a canton). Several cantons still make their laws by the traditional Landsgemeinden system, whereby all eligible voters assemble in annual outdoor meetings.

Unlike the rest of Europe, the police force is decentralised. Judges and jurors are popularly elected. With less mobility, and more deeply developed community ties, there is less crime.

Most democratic nations impose long prison terms more frequently than does America, but Switzerland does not. For all crimes except murder, the Swiss rarely inflict a prison term of more than a year; most serious offenders receive suspended sentences. As in Japan, the focus of the criminal justice system is on the reintegration of the offender into the community, rather than punishment.

Who wrote this exactly?

From wikipedia......

Kopel earned a B.A. in history with highest honors from Brown University, and won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.[2] He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

Politically he is a lifelong registered Democrat but a confessed small government libertarian at heart who voted for Ralph Nader.[3]

In 1996 he and former Illinois senator Paul Simon wrote an article published in the National Law Journal criticizing the practice ofmandatory minimum sentence.[4]

 

[2aguy]

You know brain you always post that. You realize that Switzerland....just about every home has a select fire, military grade rifle in it..........and yet they aren't stolen as often...right? Perhaps we need to import Swiss criminals, they don't seem to steal guns like our criminals do.......

Criminal culture, not guns, is the problem........

Bringing out Switzerland without understanding the country.

Switzerland has less criminals because their govt acts sensibly, and their people don't spend their whole time slagging off the other party without ever thinking.

You talk about crime culture. How would change crime culture if you were in charge? Lock up MORE people?

Yeah...here is an in depth look at Swiss culture and their guns....

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Besides subsidised military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too. While long guns require no special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority. A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

Bloody hell, you're quoting guncite. That doesn't mean you understand a single thing about the country. Sorry, but biased webpages don't get you anywhere.

Moron, I 'm quoting david kopel.....

 

[2aguy]

You are seeing how it happens in real time....watch Europe...they are doing everything they can to increase their crime rates....look at the port of Calais.....watch them...see how it happens...

So.... who has higher crime rates?

Not in the UK they're not.

Nor in France.

Nor in Germany

So WHERE EXACTLY are crimes rising?

Crime is rising in all the countries that have imported muslim immigrants and immigrants from war torn 3rd world countries.....notice that your one table ends in 2008.....try updating.....check out the problem at the port of Calais, or Marseille..............ports tend to be the focus of gun violence in all countries, even Australia....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I've always been a big proponent of 25 years no parol if you commit a crime with a gun.
If you discharge it and no one dies you get 50 years no parol.
Kill someone? Get your affairs in order.

violent crimes should do long term prison regardless of the involvement of a firearm

and murder is murder

why should someone get life for slicing someones throat wide open

while a bullet hole through the gut brings the death sentence

I'm good with applying that law to all violent offenders who use a weapon.

People are less inclined to get up close and personal with a knife.
A gun makes robbing and killing people easy. You go in with a knife there's a good chance you might get hurt yourself.
Saw a video awhile back where this idiot tried to rob a couple of guys on a golf course with a knife...they beat the shit out of him with their golf clubs.

You get the guys willing to use a gun off the streets and you'll make a huge dent in crime.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I've always been a big proponent of 25 years no parol if you commit a crime with a gun.
If you discharge it and no one dies you get 50 years no parol.
Kill someone? Get your affairs in order.

violent crimes should do long term prison regardless of the involvement of a firearm

and murder is murder

why should someone get life for slicing someones throat wide open

while a bullet hole through the gut brings the death sentence

I'm good with applying that law to all violent offenders who use a weapon.

People are less inclined to get up close and personal with a knife.
A gun makes robbing and killing people easy. You go in with a knife there's a good chance you might get hurt yourself.
Saw a video awhile back where this idiot tried to rob a couple of guys on a golf course with a knife...they beat the shit out of him with their golf clubs.

You get the guys willing to use a gun off the streets and you'll make a huge dent in crime.

i believe a criminal with a criminal mindset

will use whatever tool they have to commit a crime

more then half of violent crimes are committed with no weapon at all


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you are saying letting violent sociopaths who are responsible for almost all of the violence run around free is the solution to crime....you are a real genius.......

Richmond California, a place with a population of just over 100,000 has about 17 known criminals who are responsible for 76% of their shootings.......lock them up and guess what, their crime rate goes down about 76%.....

vouchers will improve education for the poor, who are trapped in democrat run schools that aren't educating them....

No, I'm not saying that. However after I don't know how long talking with you, I'd expect you to have understood at least a little of what I was saying. You seem to just be after a kill at any opportunity.

Also, I'm not saying don't lock people up. I'm saying the US locks up too many people as an excuse for doing absolutely fucking nothing to solve the social problems the country is facing. It costs how much to keep them there?

Cost of locking up Americans too high Pew study Reuters

"It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000 a year."

Imagine if you put some of that money into education, proper education and you could keep many of these people off the streets. Besides, many of those locked up shouldn't be there. Three strikes and you're out, and other such things that put people away for a long time for not much is ridiculous.

Vouchers will never, EVER help education for the poor.

You tell me how taking money OUT of education and giving it to rich people will ever help poor people to do better at education?
I've heard your argument, that some (like 10) poor people out of I don't know how many poor kids in the US managed to go to a better school. However it still doesn't stop millions still going to bad schools.

How do you make sure ALL kids go to good schools? Vouchers? Fuck off. Vouchers have NEVER been shown to be effective.

Firstly, people say that private schools are more effective than states schools. Sure they are. They have kids who generally care, who work hard, who are going somewhere, and who have parents who care. The latter is massively important in education. They get the good kids. They're clearly going to do better. But we're talking about changing the fortunes of ALL kids in the US and getting kids in poor areas who have many problems and making sure they don't make the same mistakes as their parents.
They aren't all going to go to private school, in fact 99.99999999% of the aren't.

NEA - School Vouchers The Emerging Track Record

"In the places where vouchers exist, access means a chance in a lottery. "

Ie, this is not good education for all. This is good education for the lucky.

"One's name is thrown into the hopper. If it is pulled out, the parent gets a chit good for use in a limited number of places. One might be able to use the voucher to pay private school tuition, if the school has space available and there are no other barriers - such as exclusions or preferences based on race, gender, ability, or other factors."

"Wisconsin state law sets the cap for voucher participants at 15,000. And yet, only 10,739 students use them in 2001-02, less than 10 percent of the Milwaukee public schools enrollment. "

Some just don't take it up. If it were so good, why wouldn't all in Wisconsin take up the vouchers?

"Less than 5 percent of Cleveland students use vouchers, about 4,195 students in 2001-02. About two-thirds of the Cleveland students who use vouchers never attended public schools. Vouchers in Cleveland are mostly rebates for families who were already sending their children to private schools. "

In Cleveland, like in Nevada, it's a rebate for the rich. Sucks money out of state run schools and gives it to the rich.

"In the Florida "statewide" voucher plan, about 47 students participate in two schools in Pensacola in 2001-02. "

"
VOUCHERS HAVE FAILED TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONSISTENTLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE MOVED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
Research on the impact vouchers on student achievement is surrounded by enormous controversy, with questions about the motives of those conducting the research, the methods, and the sources of funding. According to Time magazine, "A study of private programs in New York, Washington, and Dayton, Ohio . . . showed a headline-grabbing 6.3% gain in test scores by African-American students who used vouchers. However, one of the research companies [Mathematica] that gathered data for [Paul] Peterson expressed concern about how he used the information, and called his study's findings premature." (Time, 10/9/00)

"Statistically significant" achievement gains for voucher students are negligible. The gains have not been consistent, they have been far below projections, and they give no compelling evidence to justify expanding vouchers."

I could go on all day.

There might be some successes with individual students who go to better schools. But the point being that we're dealing with MASS EDUCATION, with millions of people stuck in poor areas with poor schools and voucher schemes aren't large enough, private school places aren't wide enough by a MASSIVE margin for this to have ANY IMPACT on the US whatsoever.

Chile has also had school vouchers, a more extensive system, 90% of kids get funded for their place at any school they like.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102rp06e.pdf

Here is a report by some people in Hong Kong on the voucher schemes.

About Chile: ""(a) middle- and upper-class students being the major beneficiaries; (b) worsened academic results for lower-class students; and (c) cream-skimming by private-subsidized schools"

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) private-subsidized schools were more effective and superior; and (b) the overall quality of education had improved"


Of the Milwaukee scheme: "(a) closure of participating schools due to unstable financial conditions; (b) unused capacity of participating schools owing to low programme awareness and competition from other educational programmes; and (c) higher taxes levied on property taxpayers."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

The Cleveland scheme: "However, undesirable outcomes included:- (a) low-income students from grades 4 or above could not benefit from the programme; and (b) high administration cost."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

All in all there is little to no evidence that a voucher scheme can deal with the issues the US education system is facing, and there appears to be lots of evidence that it's just a scheme by the rich for funnelling money from the govt to the pockets of the rich.

 

[frigidweirdo]

and more on Switzerland and Sweden...

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The suicide rate, though, is almost double the American rate. Guns are used in about one-fifth of all Swiss suicides compared to three-fifths of American and one-third of Canadian suicides.

It is not Switzerland's cultural makeup, or its gun policies per se, that explain that low crime rate. Rather, it is the emphasis on community duty, of which gun ownership is the most important part, that best explains low crime rate.

In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive. The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity. One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area. Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.

Proud to have the weakest central government in the West, Switzerlan is governed mainly by its 3,095 Einwohrnergemeinde (communes, sub-states of a canton). Several cantons still make their laws by the traditional Landsgemeinden system, whereby all eligible voters assemble in annual outdoor meetings.

Unlike the rest of Europe, the police force is decentralised. Judges and jurors are popularly elected. With less mobility, and more deeply developed community ties, there is less crime.

Most democratic nations impose long prison terms more frequently than does America, but Switzerland does not. For all crimes except murder, the Swiss rarely inflict a prison term of more than a year; most serious offenders receive suspended sentences. As in Japan, the focus of the criminal justice system is on the reintegration of the offender into the community, rather than punishment.

Who wrote this exactly?

From wikipedia......

Kopel earned a B.A. in history with highest honors from Brown University, and won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.[2] He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

Politically he is a lifelong registered Democrat but a confessed small government libertarian at heart who voted for Ralph Nader.[3]

In 1996 he and former Illinois senator Paul Simon wrote an article published in the National Law Journal criticizing the practice ofmandatory minimum sentence.[4]

From Wikipedia:

"David B. "Dave" Kopel[1] is an American author, attorney, political science researcher, gun rights advocate, and contributing editor to several publications."

Read, he's a gun rights advocate.

"contributor to the National Review magazine and Volokh Conspiracy legal blog. "

"National Review (N.R.) is a semimonthly magazine founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr., in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."[3]"

"The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog, founded in 2002,[1] covering legal and political issues[2][3][4] from an ideological orientation it describes as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these.""

"Kopel opposes gun control and is a benefactor member of the National Rifle Association. His articles on gun control and gun violencehave been cited in the Opposing Viewpoints Series.[5] In 2003, Kopel wrote in National Review "Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people.[6]" He recently contributed an article to the 59th Volume of the Syracuse Law Review entitled "The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller's Lesson for the World."[7]He is a critic of Michael Moore and provided a list of what he characterized as Moore's "deceits".[8][9] He appeared in FahrenHYPE 9/11, a film that disputes the allegations inFahrenheit 9/11."

So, you showed bits, and I mean bits, of wikipedia, missing out all the important stuff. Your whole claim seems to be that he's a democrat, therefore, you suppose, he should be what? Unbiased when it comes to gun control issues?

Except that the guy is not unbiased in any way. He is a conservative, no matter he votes Democrat, he writes for two conservative publications and publishes stuff on gun control that is also quite conservative.

That's who wrote that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I've always been a big proponent of 25 years no parol if you commit a crime with a gun.
If you discharge it and no one dies you get 50 years no parol.
Kill someone? Get your affairs in order.

violent crimes should do long term prison regardless of the involvement of a firearm

and murder is murder

why should someone get life for slicing someones throat wide open

while a bullet hole through the gut brings the death sentence

I'm good with applying that law to all violent offenders who use a weapon.

People are less inclined to get up close and personal with a knife.
A gun makes robbing and killing people easy. You go in with a knife there's a good chance you might get hurt yourself.
Saw a video awhile back where this idiot tried to rob a couple of guys on a golf course with a knife...they beat the shit out of him with their golf clubs.

You get the guys willing to use a gun off the streets and you'll make a huge dent in crime.

i believe a criminal with a criminal mindset

will use whatever tool they have to commit a crime

more then half of violent crimes are committed with no weapon at all


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

Yeah..but as more and more Americans start carrying guns we should be able to thin out the knife using crowd.
At least the law abider would have the upper hand for a change.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You know brain you always post that. You realize that Switzerland....just about every home has a select fire, military grade rifle in it..........and yet they aren't stolen as often...right? Perhaps we need to import Swiss criminals, they don't seem to steal guns like our criminals do.......

Criminal culture, not guns, is the problem........

Bringing out Switzerland without understanding the country.

Switzerland has less criminals because their govt acts sensibly, and their people don't spend their whole time slagging off the other party without ever thinking.

You talk about crime culture. How would change crime culture if you were in charge? Lock up MORE people?

Yeah...here is an in depth look at Swiss culture and their guns....

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Besides subsidised military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too. While long guns require no special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority. A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

Bloody hell, you're quoting guncite. That doesn't mean you understand a single thing about the country. Sorry, but biased webpages don't get you anywhere.

Moron, I 'm quoting david kopel.....

Oh feck off. You're insulting again? You wrote TWO POSTS and you one you quotes, the second you did not. How the feck am I supposed to read you mind, which, as it appears, seems to revert off to insulting at every and any opportunity possible.

I'm done with you and your pathetic regurgitation of known crap that you constantly post on this site. You don't learn from what anyone posts on here, you still continue to write the same rubbish time and time and time again.

You're on my ignore. I really don't do people with the tendency of insulting all the time. I asked you before if you were going to be a decent human being on here and you didn't even have the balls to reply. You should have just told me that you were not and never will bother to be a decent human being.

Bye, I will not be making the same mistake again with you. Ignore button, here I come.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Crime is rising in all the countries that have imported muslim immigrants and immigrants from war torn 3rd world countries.....notice that your one table ends in 2008.....try updating.....check out the problem at the port of Calais, or Marseille..............ports tend to be the focus of gun violence in all countries, even Australia....

Wait, just before the ignore button.

Do you not see how much fucking crap you are posting? I provide evidence that crime rates in countries "that have imported muslim immigrants" are actually GOING THE FUCK DOWN. And you reply, with NO FUCKING EVIDENCE, that the crime rates are going up, when they're clearly NOT GOING FUCKING UP.

I don't need to insult you.

 

[2aguy]

So you are saying letting violent sociopaths who are responsible for almost all of the violence run around free is the solution to crime....you are a real genius.......

Richmond California, a place with a population of just over 100,000 has about 17 known criminals who are responsible for 76% of their shootings.......lock them up and guess what, their crime rate goes down about 76%.....

vouchers will improve education for the poor, who are trapped in democrat run schools that aren't educating them....

No, I'm not saying that. However after I don't know how long talking with you, I'd expect you to have understood at least a little of what I was saying. You seem to just be after a kill at any opportunity.

Also, I'm not saying don't lock people up. I'm saying the US locks up too many people as an excuse for doing absolutely fucking nothing to solve the social problems the country is facing. It costs how much to keep them there?

Cost of locking up Americans too high Pew study Reuters

"It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000 a year."

Imagine if you put some of that money into education, proper education and you could keep many of these people off the streets. Besides, many of those locked up shouldn't be there. Three strikes and you're out, and other such things that put people away for a long time for not much is ridiculous.

Vouchers will never, EVER help education for the poor.

You tell me how taking money OUT of education and giving it to rich people will ever help poor people to do better at education?
I've heard your argument, that some (like 10) poor people out of I don't know how many poor kids in the US managed to go to a better school. However it still doesn't stop millions still going to bad schools.

How do you make sure ALL kids go to good schools? Vouchers? Fuck off. Vouchers have NEVER been shown to be effective.

Firstly, people say that private schools are more effective than states schools. Sure they are. They have kids who generally care, who work hard, who are going somewhere, and who have parents who care. The latter is massively important in education. They get the good kids. They're clearly going to do better. But we're talking about changing the fortunes of ALL kids in the US and getting kids in poor areas who have many problems and making sure they don't make the same mistakes as their parents.
They aren't all going to go to private school, in fact 99.99999999% of the aren't.

NEA - School Vouchers The Emerging Track Record

"In the places where vouchers exist, access means a chance in a lottery. "

Ie, this is not good education for all. This is good education for the lucky.

"One's name is thrown into the hopper. If it is pulled out, the parent gets a chit good for use in a limited number of places. One might be able to use the voucher to pay private school tuition, if the school has space available and there are no other barriers - such as exclusions or preferences based on race, gender, ability, or other factors."

"Wisconsin state law sets the cap for voucher participants at 15,000. And yet, only 10,739 students use them in 2001-02, less than 10 percent of the Milwaukee public schools enrollment. "

Some just don't take it up. If it were so good, why wouldn't all in Wisconsin take up the vouchers?

"Less than 5 percent of Cleveland students use vouchers, about 4,195 students in 2001-02. About two-thirds of the Cleveland students who use vouchers never attended public schools. Vouchers in Cleveland are mostly rebates for families who were already sending their children to private schools. "

In Cleveland, like in Nevada, it's a rebate for the rich. Sucks money out of state run schools and gives it to the rich.

"In the Florida "statewide" voucher plan, about 47 students participate in two schools in Pensacola in 2001-02. "

"
VOUCHERS HAVE FAILED TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONSISTENTLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE MOVED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
Research on the impact vouchers on student achievement is surrounded by enormous controversy, with questions about the motives of those conducting the research, the methods, and the sources of funding. According to Time magazine, "A study of private programs in New York, Washington, and Dayton, Ohio . . . showed a headline-grabbing 6.3% gain in test scores by African-American students who used vouchers. However, one of the research companies [Mathematica] that gathered data for [Paul] Peterson expressed concern about how he used the information, and called his study's findings premature." (Time, 10/9/00)

"Statistically significant" achievement gains for voucher students are negligible. The gains have not been consistent, they have been far below projections, and they give no compelling evidence to justify expanding vouchers."

I could go on all day.

There might be some successes with individual students who go to better schools. But the point being that we're dealing with MASS EDUCATION, with millions of people stuck in poor areas with poor schools and voucher schemes aren't large enough, private school places aren't wide enough by a MASSIVE margin for this to have ANY IMPACT on the US whatsoever.

Chile has also had school vouchers, a more extensive system, 90% of kids get funded for their place at any school they like.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102rp06e.pdf

Here is a report by some people in Hong Kong on the voucher schemes.

About Chile: ""(a) middle- and upper-class students being the major beneficiaries; (b) worsened academic results for lower-class students; and (c) cream-skimming by private-subsidized schools"

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) private-subsidized schools were more effective and superior; and (b) the overall quality of education had improved"


Of the Milwaukee scheme: "(a) closure of participating schools due to unstable financial conditions; (b) unused capacity of participating schools owing to low programme awareness and competition from other educational programmes; and (c) higher taxes levied on property taxpayers."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

The Cleveland scheme: "However, undesirable outcomes included:- (a) low-income students from grades 4 or above could not benefit from the programme; and (b) high administration cost."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

All in all there is little to no evidence that a voucher scheme can deal with the issues the US education system is facing, and there appears to be lots of evidence that it's just a scheme by the rich for funnelling money from the govt to the pockets of the rich.

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

 

[2aguy]

and more on Switzerland and Sweden...

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The suicide rate, though, is almost double the American rate. Guns are used in about one-fifth of all Swiss suicides compared to three-fifths of American and one-third of Canadian suicides.

It is not Switzerland's cultural makeup, or its gun policies per se, that explain that low crime rate. Rather, it is the emphasis on community duty, of which gun ownership is the most important part, that best explains low crime rate.

In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive. The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity. One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area. Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.

Proud to have the weakest central government in the West, Switzerlan is governed mainly by its 3,095 Einwohrnergemeinde (communes, sub-states of a canton). Several cantons still make their laws by the traditional Landsgemeinden system, whereby all eligible voters assemble in annual outdoor meetings.

Unlike the rest of Europe, the police force is decentralised. Judges and jurors are popularly elected. With less mobility, and more deeply developed community ties, there is less crime.

Most democratic nations impose long prison terms more frequently than does America, but Switzerland does not. For all crimes except murder, the Swiss rarely inflict a prison term of more than a year; most serious offenders receive suspended sentences. As in Japan, the focus of the criminal justice system is on the reintegration of the offender into the community, rather than punishment.

Who wrote this exactly?

From wikipedia......

Kopel earned a B.A. in history with highest honors from Brown University, and won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.[2] He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

Politically he is a lifelong registered Democrat but a confessed small government libertarian at heart who voted for Ralph Nader.[3]

In 1996 he and former Illinois senator Paul Simon wrote an article published in the National Law Journal criticizing the practice ofmandatory minimum sentence.[4]

From Wikipedia:

"David B. "Dave" Kopel[1] is an American author, attorney, political science researcher, gun rights advocate, and contributing editor to several publications."

Read, he's a gun rights advocate.

"contributor to the National Review magazine and Volokh Conspiracy legal blog. "

"National Review (N.R.) is a semimonthly magazine founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr., in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."[3]"

"The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog, founded in 2002,[1] covering legal and political issues[2][3][4] from an ideological orientation it describes as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these.""

"Kopel opposes gun control and is a benefactor member of the National Rifle Association. His articles on gun control and gun violencehave been cited in the Opposing Viewpoints Series.[5] In 2003, Kopel wrote in National Review "Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people.[6]" He recently contributed an article to the 59th Volume of the Syracuse Law Review entitled "The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller's Lesson for the World."[7]He is a critic of Michael Moore and provided a list of what he characterized as Moore's "deceits".[8][9] He appeared in FahrenHYPE 9/11, a film that disputes the allegations inFahrenheit 9/11."

So, you showed bits, and I mean bits, of wikipedia, missing out all the important stuff. Your whole claim seems to be that he's a democrat, therefore, you suppose, he should be what? Unbiased when it comes to gun control issues?

Except that the guy is not unbiased in any way. He is a conservative, no matter he votes Democrat, he writes for two conservative publications and publishes stuff on gun control that is also quite conservative.

That's who wrote that.

He gave detailed look at Swiss gun culture.....moron....it was detailed and accurate vs. what you gave....and he is an actual researcher......do you deny anything he says is accurate......?

 

[Brain357]

So you are saying letting violent sociopaths who are responsible for almost all of the violence run around free is the solution to crime....you are a real genius.......

Richmond California, a place with a population of just over 100,000 has about 17 known criminals who are responsible for 76% of their shootings.......lock them up and guess what, their crime rate goes down about 76%.....

vouchers will improve education for the poor, who are trapped in democrat run schools that aren't educating them....

No, I'm not saying that. However after I don't know how long talking with you, I'd expect you to have understood at least a little of what I was saying. You seem to just be after a kill at any opportunity.

Also, I'm not saying don't lock people up. I'm saying the US locks up too many people as an excuse for doing absolutely fucking nothing to solve the social problems the country is facing. It costs how much to keep them there?

Cost of locking up Americans too high Pew study Reuters

"It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000 a year."

Imagine if you put some of that money into education, proper education and you could keep many of these people off the streets. Besides, many of those locked up shouldn't be there. Three strikes and you're out, and other such things that put people away for a long time for not much is ridiculous.

Vouchers will never, EVER help education for the poor.

You tell me how taking money OUT of education and giving it to rich people will ever help poor people to do better at education?
I've heard your argument, that some (like 10) poor people out of I don't know how many poor kids in the US managed to go to a better school. However it still doesn't stop millions still going to bad schools.

How do you make sure ALL kids go to good schools? Vouchers? Fuck off. Vouchers have NEVER been shown to be effective.

Firstly, people say that private schools are more effective than states schools. Sure they are. They have kids who generally care, who work hard, who are going somewhere, and who have parents who care. The latter is massively important in education. They get the good kids. They're clearly going to do better. But we're talking about changing the fortunes of ALL kids in the US and getting kids in poor areas who have many problems and making sure they don't make the same mistakes as their parents.
They aren't all going to go to private school, in fact 99.99999999% of the aren't.

NEA - School Vouchers The Emerging Track Record

"In the places where vouchers exist, access means a chance in a lottery. "

Ie, this is not good education for all. This is good education for the lucky.

"One's name is thrown into the hopper. If it is pulled out, the parent gets a chit good for use in a limited number of places. One might be able to use the voucher to pay private school tuition, if the school has space available and there are no other barriers - such as exclusions or preferences based on race, gender, ability, or other factors."

"Wisconsin state law sets the cap for voucher participants at 15,000. And yet, only 10,739 students use them in 2001-02, less than 10 percent of the Milwaukee public schools enrollment. "

Some just don't take it up. If it were so good, why wouldn't all in Wisconsin take up the vouchers?

"Less than 5 percent of Cleveland students use vouchers, about 4,195 students in 2001-02. About two-thirds of the Cleveland students who use vouchers never attended public schools. Vouchers in Cleveland are mostly rebates for families who were already sending their children to private schools. "

In Cleveland, like in Nevada, it's a rebate for the rich. Sucks money out of state run schools and gives it to the rich.

"In the Florida "statewide" voucher plan, about 47 students participate in two schools in Pensacola in 2001-02. "

"
VOUCHERS HAVE FAILED TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONSISTENTLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE MOVED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
Research on the impact vouchers on student achievement is surrounded by enormous controversy, with questions about the motives of those conducting the research, the methods, and the sources of funding. According to Time magazine, "A study of private programs in New York, Washington, and Dayton, Ohio . . . showed a headline-grabbing 6.3% gain in test scores by African-American students who used vouchers. However, one of the research companies [Mathematica] that gathered data for [Paul] Peterson expressed concern about how he used the information, and called his study's findings premature." (Time, 10/9/00)

"Statistically significant" achievement gains for voucher students are negligible. The gains have not been consistent, they have been far below projections, and they give no compelling evidence to justify expanding vouchers."

I could go on all day.

There might be some successes with individual students who go to better schools. But the point being that we're dealing with MASS EDUCATION, with millions of people stuck in poor areas with poor schools and voucher schemes aren't large enough, private school places aren't wide enough by a MASSIVE margin for this to have ANY IMPACT on the US whatsoever.

Chile has also had school vouchers, a more extensive system, 90% of kids get funded for their place at any school they like.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102rp06e.pdf

Here is a report by some people in Hong Kong on the voucher schemes.

About Chile: ""(a) middle- and upper-class students being the major beneficiaries; (b) worsened academic results for lower-class students; and (c) cream-skimming by private-subsidized schools"

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) private-subsidized schools were more effective and superior; and (b) the overall quality of education had improved"


Of the Milwaukee scheme: "(a) closure of participating schools due to unstable financial conditions; (b) unused capacity of participating schools owing to low programme awareness and competition from other educational programmes; and (c) higher taxes levied on property taxpayers."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

The Cleveland scheme: "However, undesirable outcomes included:- (a) low-income students from grades 4 or above could not benefit from the programme; and (b) high administration cost."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

All in all there is little to no evidence that a voucher scheme can deal with the issues the US education system is facing, and there appears to be lots of evidence that it's just a scheme by the rich for funnelling money from the govt to the pockets of the rich.

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

What country has a successful school system using vouchers? You seem to know very little about education. Do you have children?

 

[2aguy]

Florida started the move for concealed carry in 1987......since that time all the states now have some form of carry law...to the point that 12.8 million Americans now carry guns for self defense....so 28 years of actual implementation of guns in our society.....and what happened?

The gun murder rate has gone down, not up....accidental gun deaths have gone down, not up......

And each time a state tried to implement gun ownership laws you guys said it would cause the gun murder rate to go up, not down...

And you were wrong. 28 years of actual implementation....not numbers pulled out of your asses....

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you are saying letting violent sociopaths who are responsible for almost all of the violence run around free is the solution to crime....you are a real genius.......

Richmond California, a place with a population of just over 100,000 has about 17 known criminals who are responsible for 76% of their shootings.......lock them up and guess what, their crime rate goes down about 76%.....

vouchers will improve education for the poor, who are trapped in democrat run schools that aren't educating them....

No, I'm not saying that. However after I don't know how long talking with you, I'd expect you to have understood at least a little of what I was saying. You seem to just be after a kill at any opportunity.

Also, I'm not saying don't lock people up. I'm saying the US locks up too many people as an excuse for doing absolutely fucking nothing to solve the social problems the country is facing. It costs how much to keep them there?

Cost of locking up Americans too high Pew study Reuters

"It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000 a year."

Imagine if you put some of that money into education, proper education and you could keep many of these people off the streets. Besides, many of those locked up shouldn't be there. Three strikes and you're out, and other such things that put people away for a long time for not much is ridiculous.

Vouchers will never, EVER help education for the poor.

You tell me how taking money OUT of education and giving it to rich people will ever help poor people to do better at education?
I've heard your argument, that some (like 10) poor people out of I don't know how many poor kids in the US managed to go to a better school. However it still doesn't stop millions still going to bad schools.

How do you make sure ALL kids go to good schools? Vouchers? Fuck off. Vouchers have NEVER been shown to be effective.

Firstly, people say that private schools are more effective than states schools. Sure they are. They have kids who generally care, who work hard, who are going somewhere, and who have parents who care. The latter is massively important in education. They get the good kids. They're clearly going to do better. But we're talking about changing the fortunes of ALL kids in the US and getting kids in poor areas who have many problems and making sure they don't make the same mistakes as their parents.
They aren't all going to go to private school, in fact 99.99999999% of the aren't.

NEA - School Vouchers The Emerging Track Record

"In the places where vouchers exist, access means a chance in a lottery. "

Ie, this is not good education for all. This is good education for the lucky.

"One's name is thrown into the hopper. If it is pulled out, the parent gets a chit good for use in a limited number of places. One might be able to use the voucher to pay private school tuition, if the school has space available and there are no other barriers - such as exclusions or preferences based on race, gender, ability, or other factors."

"Wisconsin state law sets the cap for voucher participants at 15,000. And yet, only 10,739 students use them in 2001-02, less than 10 percent of the Milwaukee public schools enrollment. "

Some just don't take it up. If it were so good, why wouldn't all in Wisconsin take up the vouchers?

"Less than 5 percent of Cleveland students use vouchers, about 4,195 students in 2001-02. About two-thirds of the Cleveland students who use vouchers never attended public schools. Vouchers in Cleveland are mostly rebates for families who were already sending their children to private schools. "

In Cleveland, like in Nevada, it's a rebate for the rich. Sucks money out of state run schools and gives it to the rich.

"In the Florida "statewide" voucher plan, about 47 students participate in two schools in Pensacola in 2001-02. "

"
VOUCHERS HAVE FAILED TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONSISTENTLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE MOVED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
Research on the impact vouchers on student achievement is surrounded by enormous controversy, with questions about the motives of those conducting the research, the methods, and the sources of funding. According to Time magazine, "A study of private programs in New York, Washington, and Dayton, Ohio . . . showed a headline-grabbing 6.3% gain in test scores by African-American students who used vouchers. However, one of the research companies [Mathematica] that gathered data for [Paul] Peterson expressed concern about how he used the information, and called his study's findings premature." (Time, 10/9/00)

"Statistically significant" achievement gains for voucher students are negligible. The gains have not been consistent, they have been far below projections, and they give no compelling evidence to justify expanding vouchers."

I could go on all day.

There might be some successes with individual students who go to better schools. But the point being that we're dealing with MASS EDUCATION, with millions of people stuck in poor areas with poor schools and voucher schemes aren't large enough, private school places aren't wide enough by a MASSIVE margin for this to have ANY IMPACT on the US whatsoever.

Chile has also had school vouchers, a more extensive system, 90% of kids get funded for their place at any school they like.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102rp06e.pdf

Here is a report by some people in Hong Kong on the voucher schemes.

About Chile: ""(a) middle- and upper-class students being the major beneficiaries; (b) worsened academic results for lower-class students; and (c) cream-skimming by private-subsidized schools"

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) private-subsidized schools were more effective and superior; and (b) the overall quality of education had improved"


Of the Milwaukee scheme: "(a) closure of participating schools due to unstable financial conditions; (b) unused capacity of participating schools owing to low programme awareness and competition from other educational programmes; and (c) higher taxes levied on property taxpayers."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

The Cleveland scheme: "However, undesirable outcomes included:- (a) low-income students from grades 4 or above could not benefit from the programme; and (b) high administration cost."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

All in all there is little to no evidence that a voucher scheme can deal with the issues the US education system is facing, and there appears to be lots of evidence that it's just a scheme by the rich for funnelling money from the govt to the pockets of the rich.

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

What country has a successful school system using vouchers? You seem to know very little about education. Do you have children?

Who are you replying to?

 

[Brain357]

Florida started the move for concealed carry in 1987......since that time all the states now have some form of carry law...to the point that 12.8 million Americans now carry guns for self defense....so 28 years of actual implementation of guns in our society.....and what happened?

The gun murder rate has gone down, not up....accidental gun deaths have gone down, not up......

And each time a state tried to implement gun ownership laws you guys said it would cause the gun murder rate to go up, not down...

And you were wrong. 28 years of actual implementation....not numbers pulled out of your asses....

Murder rates have been going down for over 30 years. Concealed carry does not effect crime rates. In Chicago and WI violent crime has gone up since getting concealed carry.

 

[Brain357]

So you are saying letting violent sociopaths who are responsible for almost all of the violence run around free is the solution to crime....you are a real genius.......

Richmond California, a place with a population of just over 100,000 has about 17 known criminals who are responsible for 76% of their shootings.......lock them up and guess what, their crime rate goes down about 76%.....

vouchers will improve education for the poor, who are trapped in democrat run schools that aren't educating them....

No, I'm not saying that. However after I don't know how long talking with you, I'd expect you to have understood at least a little of what I was saying. You seem to just be after a kill at any opportunity.

Also, I'm not saying don't lock people up. I'm saying the US locks up too many people as an excuse for doing absolutely fucking nothing to solve the social problems the country is facing. It costs how much to keep them there?

Cost of locking up Americans too high Pew study Reuters

"It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000 a year."

Imagine if you put some of that money into education, proper education and you could keep many of these people off the streets. Besides, many of those locked up shouldn't be there. Three strikes and you're out, and other such things that put people away for a long time for not much is ridiculous.

Vouchers will never, EVER help education for the poor.

You tell me how taking money OUT of education and giving it to rich people will ever help poor people to do better at education?
I've heard your argument, that some (like 10) poor people out of I don't know how many poor kids in the US managed to go to a better school. However it still doesn't stop millions still going to bad schools.

How do you make sure ALL kids go to good schools? Vouchers? Fuck off. Vouchers have NEVER been shown to be effective.

Firstly, people say that private schools are more effective than states schools. Sure they are. They have kids who generally care, who work hard, who are going somewhere, and who have parents who care. The latter is massively important in education. They get the good kids. They're clearly going to do better. But we're talking about changing the fortunes of ALL kids in the US and getting kids in poor areas who have many problems and making sure they don't make the same mistakes as their parents.
They aren't all going to go to private school, in fact 99.99999999% of the aren't.

NEA - School Vouchers The Emerging Track Record

"In the places where vouchers exist, access means a chance in a lottery. "

Ie, this is not good education for all. This is good education for the lucky.

"One's name is thrown into the hopper. If it is pulled out, the parent gets a chit good for use in a limited number of places. One might be able to use the voucher to pay private school tuition, if the school has space available and there are no other barriers - such as exclusions or preferences based on race, gender, ability, or other factors."

"Wisconsin state law sets the cap for voucher participants at 15,000. And yet, only 10,739 students use them in 2001-02, less than 10 percent of the Milwaukee public schools enrollment. "

Some just don't take it up. If it were so good, why wouldn't all in Wisconsin take up the vouchers?

"Less than 5 percent of Cleveland students use vouchers, about 4,195 students in 2001-02. About two-thirds of the Cleveland students who use vouchers never attended public schools. Vouchers in Cleveland are mostly rebates for families who were already sending their children to private schools. "

In Cleveland, like in Nevada, it's a rebate for the rich. Sucks money out of state run schools and gives it to the rich.

"In the Florida "statewide" voucher plan, about 47 students participate in two schools in Pensacola in 2001-02. "

"
VOUCHERS HAVE FAILED TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONSISTENTLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE MOVED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
Research on the impact vouchers on student achievement is surrounded by enormous controversy, with questions about the motives of those conducting the research, the methods, and the sources of funding. According to Time magazine, "A study of private programs in New York, Washington, and Dayton, Ohio . . . showed a headline-grabbing 6.3% gain in test scores by African-American students who used vouchers. However, one of the research companies [Mathematica] that gathered data for [Paul] Peterson expressed concern about how he used the information, and called his study's findings premature." (Time, 10/9/00)

"Statistically significant" achievement gains for voucher students are negligible. The gains have not been consistent, they have been far below projections, and they give no compelling evidence to justify expanding vouchers."

I could go on all day.

There might be some successes with individual students who go to better schools. But the point being that we're dealing with MASS EDUCATION, with millions of people stuck in poor areas with poor schools and voucher schemes aren't large enough, private school places aren't wide enough by a MASSIVE margin for this to have ANY IMPACT on the US whatsoever.

Chile has also had school vouchers, a more extensive system, 90% of kids get funded for their place at any school they like.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102rp06e.pdf

Here is a report by some people in Hong Kong on the voucher schemes.

About Chile: ""(a) middle- and upper-class students being the major beneficiaries; (b) worsened academic results for lower-class students; and (c) cream-skimming by private-subsidized schools"

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) private-subsidized schools were more effective and superior; and (b) the overall quality of education had improved"


Of the Milwaukee scheme: "(a) closure of participating schools due to unstable financial conditions; (b) unused capacity of participating schools owing to low programme awareness and competition from other educational programmes; and (c) higher taxes levied on property taxpayers."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

The Cleveland scheme: "However, undesirable outcomes included:- (a) low-income students from grades 4 or above could not benefit from the programme; and (b) high administration cost."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

All in all there is little to no evidence that a voucher scheme can deal with the issues the US education system is facing, and there appears to be lots of evidence that it's just a scheme by the rich for funnelling money from the govt to the pockets of the rich.

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

What country has a successful school system using vouchers? You seem to know very little about education. Do you have children?

Who are you replying to?

Person you are ignoring. I'm unaware of any voucher success stories.