Well, a growing economy naturally presents opportunities for people to move up in socioeconomic status through employment, entrepreneurship etc. What I mean by mobility by government policy is that in many European countries people have been moved up the social ladder through a variety of social welfare policies paid for by higher taxes which always reduce growth, innovation and entrepreneurship. In an economy like that you can achieve all kinds of things that look good in statistical comparisons but only in the short run. Eventually you get more of what you reward and less of what you tax and what they are doing is taxing success and rewarding failure.

I should have said opportunity rather than social mobility. Social mobility when achieved through government policy rather than economic reality will cost more in the long run.

And yet even with a "massive waste of human talent" the US leads the world in innovation, scientific achievement, per capita GDP (at least compared to countries that matter), military power (even in comparison to pretty much the rest of the world put together) etc etc. Why are there no European Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook. Do you realize that huge majority of the largest and best companies in the world are US based? Do you realize that 70 of the top 100 universities according to Times Education rankings are in the US? Just imagine what we could do if we didn't have that "massive waste of human talent".

Or perhaps the answer is that relative economic liberty that enables economic growth and innovation cannot be separated from inequality. You can choose one or the other.

Europe is rotten economically and politically to the point where a new wave of dictatorships and wars (a regular occurrence in that part of the world) is not unthinkable anymore and the reason for that is not unrelated to sacrificing liberty for the sake of equality i.e. sacrificing some people for the sake of others.

I think most people who are on the short end of income equality would describe it as a problem.
 
They might, but it doesn't mean that it is.
 
  Grading ourselves...
 
The issue being discussed is not grading "ourselves" but grading our schools. As for grading ourselves, well we are doing better than Finland in many respects including for instance per capita purchasing power adjusted GDP of 48K versus 37K. Would you live in Finland? I wouldn't.

Well its a matter of opinion whether income inequality is a "problem" or not but the study is talking about the schools.

And yet there is greater socioeconomic mobility in the US than in other places, such as Europe.

No, it means the US has rich kids receiving a good education, and poor kids receiving a poor education.
 
Hmm, the uncomfortable reality is that rich kids perform better even in same schools with same teachers. It's what happens at home that makes the difference, namely greater expectations from parents and a greater range of activities and experiences outside the school.

It's simple. When you compare likes with likes (as far as socioeconomic class goes) the US is not any worse than other countries.

We look worse on the surface because (from TFA), "a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country."

Not sure about the laws in Japan but in similar situations in the US wouldn't certain media organizations be liable for "yelling fire in a crowded theater"? Not that I'm in favor of any restriction on free speech but given that we have an established standard where an individual can be held liable for causing panic where people get hurt, shouldn't a news organizations be liable for exaggerated sensationalistic reporting that causes panic and stress related deaths nationwide?

The school has armed guards as part of their regular staff, nothing to do with Obama's children who have their own Secret Service protection. Same applies to most of the exclusive private schools where most of the prominent gun control advocates send their kids. Why don't they simply declare them gun-free zones since that works so well for the public schools, and doesn't the presence of guns on the school property actually increase the danger to the kids as they would lead us to believe? And no taxes don't need to go way up. All that needs to happen is to repeal the stupid gun-free zone laws and allow schools to arm a few volunteer teachers (NRA will provide training and background checks for those teachers for free) and if they chose to ask for parent contribution to hire a security guard, and modify the procedures so there is a single point of entry (NRA offered to provide security advice free of charge as well). It would obviously improve the safety of children in reality as opposed of gun-free zones which only work in fantasies of stupid people like yourself.

has nothing to do with creating safe neighbourhoods, safe work environments or safe schools
 
Except when it comes to our political and media elites who have armed guards patrolling their gated communities, armed guards at their government and network offices, armed bodyguards when they happen to move around, and armed guards at their schools (at the latest count Obama's children's school hires 11, in addition to the Secret Service detail). But of course when it comes to the children of ordinary citizens, they should rely on the magic of gun-free zones and to repel the criminals and the psychos, and of course the police to arrive 20 minutes after the event and make a body count.

Not true, but you prefer to say stupid things rather than spend 5 seconds looking something up don't let me stop you.

Let me fix that for you: If you read even the summary, you'd think that's precisely what this is but if you read the article you'd know that it is not. Assuming summaries are at all factual or correct is likely to lead you to fail.
 
From TFA: The PGF isn't just a fancy scope on top of a rifle. All together, the PGF is made up of a firearm, a modified trigger mechanism with variable weighting, the computerized digital tracking scope, and hand-loaded match grade rounds (which you need to purchase from TrackingPoint).

Why do you need more than 3 bullets ?
 
Because it often takes way more than three bullets to disable even an unarmed attacker, never mind an armed one, or several of them. Most of the bullets will miss, especially when fired under stress. Most of those that hit will miss vital organs and fail to stop the attacker. Even some of those that hit vital organs still won't stop them immediately.

With all the technology we have, why do we still need to kill someone to stop them.
 
If by "we" you mean the police, than the answer is no, we don't. Police will generally not use lethal force unless the suspect is also armed with a gun, or presents an immediate threat to someones life. Surely you realize that it is foolish to bring a taser to a gun fight or to use rubber bullet when the suspect is using real ones?

Now, if you could develop a magical weapon that could drop an armed suspect without killing him, sure, that would be nice, but it is VERY difficult to develop such a thing or they would be around already. There is a fine line between delivering enough force to stop somebody from doing what they are doing (and make sure they stay stopped, every time) and delivering enough force to actually kill them. Since even multiple gun shots are often not enough to immediately stop a psycho high on drugs and/or adrenaline, what chance does a rubber bullet or something like that have?