Mass Shootings

[Brisketexan 105161]

3 minutes ago, HoustonHorn said:

Really good post. I do think the copycat factor definitely plays a role and with the number of guns available it is pretty easy to duplicate in the United States. But a person is only going to copycat if they are already feeling angry/unstable/etc.

Agreed.  It makes me thing about the words we even use to describe ourselves in contrast: I had guns in my car in high school, but "it never even occurred to me to shoot the place up."  Sure, I'm not an unstable nutbar, but the bigger point is that I didn't even conceive of that being a possibility.  It would be like suggesting a rocket to the moon to someone in 1850 -- not even something they had even thought of, even though we had crude rockets, and we knew where the moon was.

Create the idea.  It's not a broad social trend (not like those silly acid-washed jeans), but it's one that has a SMALL receptive audience -- angry, unstable, young males.  Who have access to firearms.  Who have relatively soft targets available to them.  Every element matters, and all should be examined.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

They controlled many things on a neighborhood-level (income, race, age), not crime rate.

1) Knowing whether gun-owners were more likely to defend themselves from an assailant would have side-stepped the correlation/causation problem. Starting from a premise that existing life-risks don't affect gun ownership is faulty.

2) This is basically the same as above, but for something they actually collected and chose not to use (justified homicides within temhe home).  I already explained.  They treated the victim of domestic violence the same as the perpetrator - and the same as a random murder.  There is an important distinction to be made here.  Defending yoursmestic violence is a reward of gun-ownership, the study treats it as a risk.elf from do

Concerning your crime concern: "After each interview with a case proxy, we sought a control subject matched to the case subject according to sex, race, age range (15 to 24 years, 25 to 40 years, 41 to 60 years, and 61 years or older), and neighborhood of residence."   Race, sex, age, AND neighborhood were controlled. I.e., for each proxy that occurred in a neighborhood, there was a control in that same neighborhood, which would account for crime.  

The study methods accounted for defense from firearms.  That was a big part of the study.

The study accounted for life risks and showed that "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home." Note that there can be more than one important risk factor.  The study shows that by adding a firearm in the house, you are adding a risk factor.  Just like if you add a roommate that uses illicit drugs, or you let an abusive boyfriend move in.  

"They treated the victim of domestic violence the same as the perpetrator - and the same as a random murder." Yes, you are more likely to experience a homicide (whether you are perpetrator or victim of domestic violence or random murder) if there is a gun present.  3.6% of evaluated homicides occurred under legally excusable circumstances - 96.4% were not legally excusable. See table 1 for the break down on the various homicide characteristics.

"Defending yourself from domestic violence is a reward of gun-ownership, the study treats it as a risk." Again, only 3.6% of evaluated homicides occurred under legally excusable circumstances.   

The bottom line is that these findings are significant. You are less safe concerning homicides with a firearm in your home than you are without. This is the type of study that needs to be replicated and fine-tuned.  This study didn't even touch on suicides risks from owning a firearm.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I’d opt out of arming teachers, and work towards hardening classroom doors. If you have an armed officer on campus, he should be able to get to the location before the door fails.

I’d harden classroom doors and allow any school employee with a CHL to carry on campus if they choose.  A lot of Texas school districts already do the latter

Edited May 30, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[JBJ 3655]

34 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Concerning your crime concern: "After each interview with a case proxy, we sought a control subject matched to the case subject according to sex, race, age range (15 to 24 years, 25 to 40 years, 41 to 60 years, and 61 years or older), and neighborhood of residence."   Race, sex, age, AND neighborhood were controlled. I.e., for each proxy that occurred in a neighborhood, there was a control in that same neighborhood, which would account for crime.  

The study methods accounted for defense from firearms.  That was a big part of the study.

The study accounted for life risks and showed that "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home." Note that there can be more than one important risk factor.  The study shows that by adding a firearm in the house, you are adding a risk factor.  Just like if you add a roommate that uses illicit drugs, or you let an abusive boyfriend move in.  

"They treated the victim of domestic violence the same as the perpetrator - and the same as a random murder." Yes, you are more likely to experience a homicide (whether you are perpetrator or victim of domestic violence or random murder) if there is a gun present.  3.6% of evaluated homicides occurred under legally excusable circumstances - 96.4% were not legally excusable. See table 1 for the break down on the various homicide characteristics.

"Defending yourself from domestic violence is a reward of gun-ownership, the study treats it as a risk." Again, only 3.6% of evaluated homicides occurred under legally excusable circumstances.   

The bottom line is that these findings are significant. You are less safe concerning homicides with a firearm in your home than you are without. This is the type of study that needs to be replicated and fine-tuned.  This study didn't even touch on suicides risks from owning a firearm.

You are missing the forest for trees. The problem isn't that the study isn't muvltivariate, it is that it assumes causation improperly. (Technically, the study doesn't but you are). The study found that any homicide is more likely in households with guns.  Guns are also more likely to be in households at-risk.  The control group and other variables does nothing to change that.

They could have side-stepped the issue by separating and analyzing defensive uses.  They chose not to.

You cite 3.6% of justifiable homicides against another member of the same household.  This is not only counted against gun ownership, it completely ignores that they specifically excluded all other self-defenses even self-defense resulting in a homicide against any non-resident (which would have been easy data to obtain).

 

This is such a stupid argument to even be holding.  If you think that the study shows that gun ownership causes increased homicides, you'd also have to accept that renting a house increases homicides by nearly twice that amount.  The bottom line is that the study isn't trying to do what you think it is.

[jimmyjazz 45988]

So it seems many, if not most agree that this is a complex problem that will have to be attacked on many fronts, with incremental (albeit significant) small steps being the most likely approach to improving the situation.  It's ironic that  most people seem to be focused on one aspect of the perceived solution . . . whatever that might be (mental health, access to guns, copycat, video games, medication, etc.).

It's one thing to say "I recognize this is complicated".  It's another thing entirely to be willing to actually advocate for a multi-pronged effort.  To me, the former is likely little more than lip service, at least for most people.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You are missing the forest for trees. The problem isn't that the study isn't muvltivariate, it is that it assumes causation improperly. (Technically, the study doesn't but you are). The study found that any homicide is more likely in households with guns.  Guns are also more likely to be in households at-risk.  The control group and other variables does nothing to change that.

They could have side-stepped the issue by separating and analyzing defensive uses.  They chose not to.

You cite 3.6% of justifiable homicides against another member of the same household.  This is not only counted against gun ownership, it completely ignores that they specifically excluded all other self-defenses even self-defense resulting in a homicide against any non-resident (which would have been easy data to obtain).

 

This is such a stupid argument to even be holding.  If you think that the study shows that gun ownership causes increased homicides, you'd also have to accept that "The study found that any homicide is more likely in households with guns.  Guns are also more likely to be in households at-risk. 

"The study found that any homicide is more likely in households with guns."    Yes, and this is significant.

"Guns are also more likely to be in households at-risk." I don't see that established in this study; however, other risks were part of the study. "Six variables were retained in our final conditional logistic-regression model: home rented, case subject or control lived alone, any household member ever hit or hurt in a fight in the home, any household member ever arrested, any household member used illicit drugs, and one or more guns kept in the home." 

From the study: "After matching for four characteristics and controlling for the effects of five more, we found that the presence of one or more firearms in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home. Gun ownership was most strongly associated with homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. Guns were not significantly linked to an increased risk of homicide by acquaintances, unidentified intruders, or strangers. We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup, including one restricted to cases of homicide that followed forced entry into the home and another restricted to cases in which resistance was attempted. Not surprisingly, the link between gun ownership and homicide was due entirely to a strong association between gun ownership and homicide by firearms. Homicide by other means was not significantly linked to the presence or absence of a gun in the home. "

"completely ignores that they specifically excluded all other self-defenses even self-defense resulting in a homicide against any non-resident (which would have been easy data to obtain)." 

From the study: "Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry."

Again, this study didn't touch on the increased risks associated with suicides. 

For another study that corroborates Kellerman, see below: "Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380933/

[cabowabo 4492]

Edit. Wrong thread.

 

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's the horrific truth: there's essentially nothing that can stop a creative, determined shooter.

It's a realization I came to years ago, after 9/11, when we started really looking at vulnerabilities to terrorists.  I won't go into detail here, but I looked around and realized that I could, quite easily, kill hundreds of people and/or cripple crucial infrastructure with some simple (albeit large) explosive devices.  We just can't harden everything -- we can't.  We can't protect every bridge over the Colorado river, for example.

Instead, we have to take the best, reasonable measures that we can, which reduce the odds, make it harder, etc.

It's the same way I look at driving.  My wife and I are good drivers.  We drive good, safe, well-maintained vehicles, with top-end safety equipment.  We are as safe as we can be.  But I also know that at any instance, she or I could get that phone call -- a truck jumped the median, there was no avoiding it, he/she is dead.  There's no way to be perfectly, 100% death-proof on the road.  Or terrorist-proof.  Or school shooter-proof.  Instead, we just do what we can to lower the risk.

I don’t disagree with anything you are saying, I just found it odd today. Enough for me to notice, and then start picking apart the shortcomings.  Day to day, they do a great job and are improving constantly.

It just reminded me of something.  When Houston had the super bowl, I had some work I needed to be looked at by the USCG (I had to shut down the ICW in Freeport for a few hours). I sent my plan in to them a month or so ahead of time, as requested.  They never even got to review it because they were having to patrol much more frequently due to super bowl.  The coasties. In Freeport. Pulling over fishing boats during the weeks before super bowl because the Marsec levels increase.  My thought was graduation, prom, etc are the super bowls of school. We should be on higher alert, or at least normal. Not walk in and get your pass to the school. 

Anyhow, my statement about slightly hardening the schools until we get more procedures in place still stands. I’m talking better locks on doors, an extra cop or two, etc. Not running razor wire and building watchtowers. 

[JBJ 3655]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

"completely ignores that they specifically excluded all other self-defenses even self-defense resulting in a homicide against any non-resident (which would have been easy data to obtain)." 

From the study: "Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry."

How would they? They didn't even look for it.  They only gathered information on in-home homicides of the residents.  The premise pretty much excludes every situation where having a gun was a better alternative.

[HoustonHorn 1062]

So it seems many, if not most agree that this is a complex problem that will have to be attacked on many fronts, with incremental (albeit significant) small steps being the most likely approach to improving the situation.  It's ironic that  most people seem to be focused on one aspect of the perceived solution . . . whatever that might be (mental health, access to guns, copycat, video games, medication, etc.).
It's one thing to say "I recognize this is complicated".  It's another thing entirely to be willing to actually advocate for a multi-pronged effort.  To me, the former is likely little more than lip service, at least for most people.

It would probably help if we could come to some consensus of issues, sub issues and proposed changes. Otherwise what are we advocating? Seems like some position is needed.

I've tried on this thread and in BB, but the interest is only in addressing guns, addressing definitions, or addressing what ad hominem means. Easy deflections by people not interested in discussing actual issues.

I started a list earlier in this thread and it needs to be expanded on significantly by everyone, not just one side or the other, but everyone. Them we can narrow it down and improve it and maybe come up with some position that we can advocate as a group as reasonable.

One person isn't going to be able to actually advocate for a fucking thing, especially on a message board. But a large group of differing viewpoints from smart people should be able to come up with something that is worth following through on.

I realize it isn't as sexy as smart ass one liners and clever quips that get message board points, but it certainly seems a better solution than the circle jerk that happens every fucking time a tragedy like this occurs.

My $0.02.

[R2D2 91]

Fewer guns is the solution 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

9 hours ago, JBJ said:

How would they? They didn't even look for it.  They only gathered information on in-home homicides of the residents.  The premise pretty much excludes every situation where having a gun was a better alternative.

Because if having a firearm provided protection, that protection would have shown up in the study. The study found "Guns were not significantly linked to an increased risk of homicide by acquaintances, unidentified intruders, or strangers."  If the study had measured a protection effect, guns would have had a decreased risk of homicide by strangers, etc.  

[GW Hayduke 1953]

7 hours ago, HoustonHorn said:

It would probably help if we could come to some consensus of issues, sub issues and proposed changes. Otherwise what are we advocating? Seems like some position is needed.

I've tried on this thread and in BB, but the interest is only in addressing guns, addressing definitions, or addressing what ad hominem means. Easy deflections by people not interested in discussing actual issues.

I started a list earlier in this thread and it needs to be expanded on significantly by everyone, not just one side or the other, but everyone. Them we can narrow it down and improve it and maybe come up with some position that we can advocate as a group as reasonable.

One person isn't going to be able to actually advocate for a fucking thing, especially on a message board. But a large group of differing viewpoints from smart people should be able to come up with something that is worth following through on.

I realize it isn't as sexy as smart ass one liners and clever quips that get message board points, but it certainly seems a better solution than the circle jerk that happens every fucking time a tragedy like this occurs.

My $0.02.
 

I agree with this sentiment. I’ve unfortunately allowed myself to be bogged down by what I consider dishonest trolling that led things into irrelevant weeds. 

Where is this list you speak of?

[BabaYaga 15302]

10 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Anyhow, my statement about slightly hardening the schools until we get more procedures in place still stands. I’m talking better locks on doors, an extra cop or two, etc. Not running razor wire and building watchtowers. 

This is a tactical problem, requiring a tactical solution.  Gun studies, heightened regulations, mental health studies, even outright bans...assuming these were all agreed upon, could take years if not decades to full bake (if ever).  Schools and our children need protection now. 

As such, converging layers of security is always the first step to protect a known target.  Inner, middle, outer.  Interior, entry, exterior.  Nobody is talking dogs and barked wire.  School marshals.  CHL carriers is they so desire.  Hardened doors.  Watch DOG volunteers patrolling school perimeters.  Armed security.  Electronic surveillance.  Limited points of entry.  From there it expands to local LE.  Then Federal.  Then you get into backgrounds checks.  Straw buyers.  Securing firearms.  Modernized NICS database improvements.  Etc..

We react immediately to acts of terrorism.  We implement tactical fixes designed to mitigate future attacks until larger, more strategic policies can be put in place.  We hardened cockpit doors.  Put air marshals on planes.  We screen.  I have to take my shoes off every damn time I fly because some asshole tried to blow up his shoe.  This is no different.  Just because the shooters are not seemingly motivated by specific organizations or religious fervor, doesn't mean they are not terrorists.  Just the home grown variety. 

Last I heard from a few "friends" that wear dark colors, carry scary black rifles, and love to run around in the dark was that they are operating in more than 150 countries (today, right now).  The rationale - to keep a bomb from going off in Times Square.  Or a rural Iowa shopping mall.  If terrorists were bombing schools or shooting them up like the FL nightclub.  Would we be discussing gun bans, or securing the target? 

[bernorange 8362]

You peeps talking about hardening the schools have all missed (I posted a bit about it many pages back) the most effective preventative action that my kid's district has implemented and has already worked to arrest (and charge with terroristic threat felonies) several individuals.  It's an anonymous "see something, say something" reporting tool where students (or anyone) can report concerns about their peers (usually when they have posted threats on social media).  The "see something, say something" reporting tool didn't require an act of Congress or even a whole lot of money to create.

[BabaYaga 15302]

“Thresholds of Violence – How School Shootings catch on” by Malcolm Gladwell

This is a sobering article.  Read it.  This is the threat facing our children.  I refer back to this because the videos have been released from Cruz stating his intentions to kill “at least” 20 people.  I refuse to post it.  I admonish the media that has; giving him the platform he so obviously wanted.

John LaDue – confronted by police after a call from a concerned citizen.  In his storage unit they found motor oil, ammunition, & red iron oxide.  He admitted he was making bombs.  His admitted plan:  making Molotov cocktails using motor oil and tar (vs gas), pressure cooker bombs utilizing thousands of ball bearings.  Pipes for pipe bombs.  15lbs of potassium perchlorate, 9lbs. of aluminum powder and ingredients to make thermite. 

·         “LaDue: “O.K. Sometime before the end of the school year, my plan was to steal a recycling bin from the school and take one of the pressure cookers I made and put it in the hallway and blow it up during passing period time. . . . I would detonate when people were fleeing, just like the Boston bombings, and blow them up too. Then my plans were to enter and throw Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs and destroy everyone and then when the swat comes I would destroy myself.”

·         “In his bedroom, he had an SKS assault rifle with sixty rounds of ammunition, a Beretta 9-mm. handgun, a gun safe with an additional firearm, and three ready-made explosive devices. On the day of the attack, he would start with a .22-calibre rifle and move on to a shotgun, in order to prove that high-capacity assault-style rifles were unnecessary for an effective school attack.”

·         LaDue: “I forgot to mention a detail. Before that day, I was planning to dispose of my family too.”

·         Schroeder: “Why would you dispose of your family? What, what have they done?”

·         LaDue: “They did nothing wrong. I just wanted as many victims as possible.”

·         “The LaDue case does not resolve this puzzle. LaDue doesn’t hear voices. He isn’t emotional or malicious or angry or vindictive. Schroeder asks him about violent games, and he says he hasn’t been playing them much recently. Then they talk about violent music, and LaDue says he’s been playing guitar for eight years and has little patience for the “retarded” music of “bands like Bullet for My Valentine or Asking Alexandria or some crap like that.” He likes Metallica: solid, normal, old-school heavy metal. “I was not bullied at all,” LaDue tells Schroeder. “I don’t think I have ever been bullied in my life. . . . I have good parents. I live in a good town.”

·         “No, his son has never been diagnosed with mental illness or depression, David LaDue, John’s father, tells the police. He isn’t taking any medication. He’s never expressed a desire to hurt anyone. He spends a lot of time in front of his computer looking at YouTube videos. He likes to experiment with what his father calls his “interesting devices.” He wears a lot of black. Isn’t that what teen-agers do?”

 

 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

Well see, they really want to spend a lot of money on schools, as long as it doesn't involve improving education or paying teachers fairly.

[bad_teammate 13218]

6 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Well see, they really want to spend a lot of money on schools, as long as it doesn't involve improving education or paying teachers fairly.

We have to spend money to protect ourselves from the negative impacts of the broken social and economic system we refuse to spend money on improving.

[BabaYaga 15302]

11 minutes ago, bernorange said:

You peeps talking about hardening the schools have all missed (I posted a bit about it many pages back) the most effective preventative action that my kid's district has implemented and has already worked to arrest (and charge with terroristic threat felonies) several individuals.  It's an anonymous "see something, say something" reporting tool where students (or anyone) can report concerns about their peers (usually when they have posted threats on social media).  The "see something, say something" reporting tool didn't require an act of Congress or even a whole lot of money to create.

This.  With almost all the domestic shootings, and even terrorist attacks, there were signs and opportunities for local LE to impede or thwart the attacks.  Opportunities missed. 

Then we have to reconcile these steps with Federal polices such as PROMISE, that in the case of the Parkland shooter, seem to have failed.  The intention, ending the school-to-prison pipeline, is admirable.  But with so many of these top-down policies, the unintended consequences are severe.  Cruz had a well known history of disturbing behavior.  There is a middle ground here.  Someone reported multiple times to the FBI and local LE warrants further investigation. 

[BabaYaga 15302]

30 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Well see, they really want to spend a lot of money on schools, as long as it doesn't involve improving education or paying teachers fairly.

Someone get a mop....

[Johnny Sack 8397]

55 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We have to spend money to protect ourselves from the negative impacts of the broken social and economic system we refuse to spend money on improving.

We spend a lot on that stuff and social engineering, after of course the government takes their half for administering.  How much more do you think we need and where does the money come from?  And what economic system in the world is better?  Or social system?

Edited May 31, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[bad_teammate 13218]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

We spend a lot on that stuff and social engineering, after of course the government takes their half for administering.  How much more do you think we need and where does the money come from?  And what economic system in the world is better?  Or social system?

The money comes from the extreme wealth class.

Pretty much the entire West has a better social system than us. (Not relevant to what I said, but you know that you're just trying to distract.)

I'm  not impressed at all with our economic system's ability to do anything but stratify and concentrate extreme wealth. (Again, not relevant to what I said, but you know that you're just trying to distract.)

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The money comes from the extreme wealth class.

Pretty much the entire West has a better social system than us. (Not relevant to what I said, but you know that you're just trying to distract.)

I'm  not impressed at all with our economic system's ability to do anything but stratify and concentrate extreme wealth. (Again, not relevant to what I said, but you know that you're just trying to distract.)

What's your definition of the extreme wealth class?

[BabaYaga 15302]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

The money comes from the extreme wealth class.

I see you are neither a fan of math or economics.  Keep the talking points coming....

[GW Hayduke 1953]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

We spend a lot on that stuff and social engineering, after of course the government takes their half for administering.  How much more do you think we need and where does the money come from?  And what economic system in the world is better?  Or social system?

My understanding of the idea being presented is that we ideally would invest on things upstream of an event/problem/issue (through education, expanding critical thinking skills, addressing mental health, economic mobility vs wealth disparity, addressing pitfalls to debt/poverty such as medical and college costs) in order to lower the probability or magnitude of the unwelcome event/problem/issue. 

[BabaYaga 15302]

8 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

My understanding of the idea being presented is that we ideally would invest on things upstream of an event/problem/issue (through education, expanding critical thinking skills, addressing mental health, economic mobility vs wealth disparity, addressing pitfalls to debt/poverty such as medical and college costs) in order to lower the probability or magnitude of the unwelcome event/problem/issue. 

So after we boil the ocean, we also solving for peace in the ME, ending obesity forever, and finding a cure for cancer?  Or do we do these things first?  

[bad_teammate 13218]

24 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

My understanding of the idea being presented is that we ideally would invest on things upstream of an event/problem/issue (through education, expanding critical thinking skills, addressing mental health, economic mobility vs wealth disparity, addressing pitfalls to debt/poverty such as medical and college costs) in order to lower the probability or magnitude of the unwelcome event/problem/issue. 

 

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So after we boil the ocean, we also solving for peace in the ME, ending obesity forever, and finding a cure for cancer?  Or do we do these things first?  

The difference in intelligence between these two posts is breathtaking.

27 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What's your definition of the extreme wealth class?

Anyone who has a personally-accessible wealth of over $50M is, unarguably, extremely wealthy. I am not sure one could rationally argue otherwise, but I'm eager to see you try.

[HoustonHorn 1062]

3 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

I agree with this sentiment. I’ve unfortunately allowed myself to be bogged down by what I consider dishonest trolling that led things into irrelevant weeds. 

Where is this list you speak of?

     agreed 100%

It would be interesting to see if we could come up with a list of the top 10 factors or top 20 and then identify reasonable solutions to each. I think most of these reasons are going to have a lot of sub-catergories too that will have to be broken down. I'll start with a few.

Easy Access to Guns

Lack of Moral Compass

Social Media

Bullying

Mental Health Issues

Lack of Community/Isolationism

Glorification of Violence/24-hour News Media

 

Not trying to provide a complete list, just getting one started.

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The money comes from the extreme wealth class.

Or the poors could start contributing some tax money at some point?  

[Lurch 5931]

Or the poors could start contributing some tax money at some point?  

Lets go with taxing those fuckers 50%. How much revenue did we just gain?

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

Lets go with taxing those fuckers 50%. How much revenue did we just gain?

 

Easy.  More than when they don’t contribute shit. 

[Lurch 5931]

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

Exactly.  This is pretty much assuredly going to have to be a federal thing. 5% lofuckingl. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

7 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

In case folks aren’t aware (sarcasm detecting can be hard sometimes), low-income people do pay taxes, particularly those taxes that fund schools, roads, and other public services. 

[Lurch 5931]

It’s a lost cause on these morons. Deplorables was dead. on. accurate.

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 minutes ago, Lurch said:

It’s a lost cause on these morons. Deplorables was dead. on. accurate.

No for real. Let’s take some more from the people who give the most. Why not. They got plenty, right? 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No for real. Let’s take some more from the people who give the most. Why not. They got plenty, right? 

More than any group in the history of this world. And rapidly growing. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

Ok fuck it, let them pay for it then. I let’s move them up to an even 50% and get some other cool shit while were there. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ok fuck it, let them pay for it then. I let’s move them up to an even 50% and get some other cool shit while were there. 

I agree. We might get strong middle class again like in the 1950's when the top rate was 90%. Wait, wasn't that when America was "great"? Isn't that what Trump's people want again? 

[fattyflattie 4639]

6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I agree. We might get strong middle class again like in the 1950's when the top rate was 90%. Wait, wasn't that when America was "great"? Isn't that what Trump's people want again? 

I’d rather a shitload of our population who contributes less but uses as much or more, contribute more to lessen the burden for the rest of us that carry it.  But we can fuck over the ones who’ve built great things and earned success.  

Wouldn’t want Jethro to be burdened with 7.5-10%, he might not be able to get his new TV at Walmarts in April. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by fattyflattie

[Lagunamadre 1975]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’d rather a shitload of our population who contributes less but uses as much or more, contribute more to lessen the burden for the rest of us that carry it.  But we can fuck over the ones who’ve built great things and earned success.  

Wouldn’t want Jethro to be burdened with 7.5-10%, he might not be able to get his new TV at Walmarts in April. 

Unfortunately Jethro hasn't had a pay raise in 20 years while the boss makes 300X what Jethro does with a lower effective tax rate all while Jethro's blood pressure medicine has incresed 1,000% because of a leveraged buy out of the unregulated pharma company who makes it.  

So he doesn't have any money left over to take, even if he did he would probably spend it on ammo to add to his stockpile. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I agree. We might get strong middle class again like in the 1950's when the top rate was 90%. Wait, wasn't that when America was "great"? Isn't that what Trump's people want again? 

Citing marginal tax rates is retarded.  

[fattyflattie 4639]

Sounds great. Glad I can pay 4x what he does in taxes because he’s a lazy dumbfuck. 

[BabaYaga 15302]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Citing marginal tax rates is retarded.  

Whatever you do, don't have them check what revenue as a percentage of GDP is YOY in relation to marginal tax rates...

[GW Hayduke 1953]

In case folks aren’t aware (sarcasm can be hard to identify sometimes), the wealth gap has dramatically widened since the 70s.

https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-1

[Lagunamadre 1975]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Citing marginal tax rates is retarded.  

So was the effective tax rate lower in the 50's? Back when America was "great".

[Johnny Sack 8397]

17 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

In case folks aren’t aware (sarcasm can be hard to identify sometimes), the wealth gap has dramatically widened since the 70s.

https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-1

So?

the standard of living for low income has exploded since then.  They aren’t sitting in hovels with swamp coolers and no tv with nothing in the fridge.  

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[bad_teammate 13218]

 

20 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Sounds great. Glad I can pay 4x what he does in taxes because he’s a lazy dumbfuck. 

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't actually pay much in taxes.

[Lurch 5931]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

No for real. Let’s take some more from the people who give the most. Why not. They got plenty, right? 

Yes.  Yes we do.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

In case folks aren’t aware, I’ll combine a couple ideas into one comment.  First, low income folks do pay taxes, particularly those that pay for school, roads, and other public services. Second, wealth disparity in the US has drastically grown since 70s. I.e., the wealthy are making a lot more money, the poor are making about what they were in the 70s. These are facts that reflect reality.

Now based on that information, folks can make a value judgment and say “hey, those poor people need to pay more.” Or, folks can make the value judgment of “hey, those wealthy people need to pay more.” Or folks can say, “hey, let’s give the wealthy another big tax cut.” These are opinions that reflect a persons values.

Edited May 31, 2018 by GW Hayduke