Mark Cuban: We'll see fewer mass shootings by 'taking care of income inequality'

I'd also have to see the evidence for this, especially the poverty part as that's what I thought we were focused on. Either way I am not going to just believe you on that, as logically it had to have some effect. People still need a reason to actually make themselves do better, I agree with you there. There are two parts to the solution. Solve their basic needs and provide better opportunities for moving up. Solving someones basic needs is definitely going to help with that second part.

 

The Second Amendment is a leftover from 200 years ago, but it is not the root cause of violence in America, especially today's violence. A lot of people feel "left out" and that's probably the main reason we have a lunatic in the White House. People have jobs okay, a lot of people have two or three. People want GOOD jobs that will allow them to raise a family and have respect for themselves and a position in their community. That 's why we need to create GOOD jobs and that ain't digging for more coal. We need to start pushing high growth and opportunity jobs into forgotten communities and the forgotten people in them. That means a whole catalog of jobs in his growth and opportunity manufacturing, infrastructure repair and advancement, environmental jobs, high intellectual content jobs. Then we need to INVEST in training our people to take on those jobs. And pay them while we do it because you can't eat a text book.

Income inequality is part of the anger brewing out there. You think the average Joe or Jane celebrates when the government and private sector panics at the thought of a $15 minimum raise but applauds when some washed and waxed CEO gets a multi-million dollar bonus? For what? Being head caretaker at a company that's been around doing nothing but shoving paper around? A Wall Street fat cat that doesn't produce anything while some poor schmuck farmer looks at the sky every day and prays his corn crop doesn't get leveled in a hailstorm?

Another, and maybe the biggest piss-off point out there is the arrogance of the well educated, well heeled, Intellectual individuals that feel obligated to dismiss and degrade people doing honest work and supporting a family. Probably the biggest reason we have a total moron in the White house is because a lot of the folks that voted for Hillary were a bunch of blue bloods with their nose in that air that saw little value in honest labor. People deserve and demand dignity for their work and they were ignored or even ridiculed. This would include a lot of red states.

Yeah, I'm a blue blood but I spent over half my life living and traveling some of the most humble red states. I got married there , I got educated there, I got my first job there, I learned how to hunt and fish there, I learned what it took to run a farm there, I learned what it was like to live in a %25 a week hotel in the middle of nowhere, I learned how to cherish an Autumn day and beautiful sunsets, and I learned decency and honor there. I remember how it felt to have some Ivy League ashat breathing a better grade of oxygen than me let me know about his wonderfulness..

Overall I think a lot of the anger out there comes from lack of respect and appreciation for one's hard work. I see hope on the horizon. I think a few of the mostly Democrats with their heads out of a dark place finally re-learned that lesson. 2016 and Donald Trump was a great lesson for them and others that may have voted for a corrupt ignoramus. The middle class can't be proud when they're getting ripped off by huge business, billionaires, and a corrupt governed run by people who only care about the next election.

Guns aren't the problem but they are a helluva good facilitator for blowing off frustration and anger.

 

Laughable at best. The average woman seeking an abortion is a middle class whit chick with a degree.

 

not sure these white kids committing all these mass shootings in our schools are doing it over income inequality

maybe they were bullied by a rich narcissist with a fragile ego in their school for too long and snapped, who knows what sets them off

 

Far more people die from simply being too fat.

 

Well there you have it, a very American solution; shoot all the fat people.

 

Honestly, it sounds like mass shooters are being used as an excuse to push for just a bit more socialism. If it isn't "for the kids", it's something else equally ridiculous because any excuse is better than no excuse. There's certainly no evidence that if only they were given just a bit more money by the government, then they wouldn't have killed all those people.

If anybody is really interested, there are interviews with a lot of these people. The reasons they do what they do can't be explained so simplistically. Some of them are gang bangers who saw a bunch of rival gang members and did a drive by on them. Others suffer from anger management problems, and then there are psychopaths.

The most interesting video I've seen is of Nikolas Cruz during his interrogation after killing 17 students at his old high school. The cops catch him a few hours afterwards and the video is roughly 4 hours after walking out of the high school. It's an unbroken unedited 10 hour video of him sitting in a chair either cooling his heels or talking with some lying fat pig (a great tutorial on just how disgusting police can be and what kind of tricks to watch out for).

 

we do need to work on income inequality, but I don't think it will solve the mass shooter issues

investing in mental health care might help though

heck, could be the amount of sugar kids eat today, causing mental illness

 

No. This is just mindless propaganda. Almost all mass shooters are middle class or teens that havent event started their way in the world yet.

 

Total universal basic income is paying everyone 18+ an income that will allow them to survive even if they do not work. IE: Enough to pay the rent, food, healthcare, etc etc.

 

I have a similar fear too in that I think $1000/month may even be too much to start, in some areas of the US $1000 would be a "total UBI".

 

Alaska has always had a much higher cost of living due to its location relative to the rest of the US. Just like Hawaii, which does not have a dividend, has such a high cost of living. Which iirc is higher than Alaska.

As for his hallmark issue, I'm not against his idea of UBI. I'm against "total" UBI, IE: paying people enough to pay for rent, food, healthcare, etc etc etc. It would cost about 15k per year, per person to pay for just the bare minimum of things needed. I arrive at that number by my own life experience of living in subsidized housing. You could probably reduce it to 10k...but that would be stretching it. So lets go with that for now. 10k X 200,000,000 adults (roughly). That's 2 trillion per year. The only way to get that kind of money every year is to seize control of lots of means of production.

Mind you the US is expected to take in 3.6 trillion in fiscal year 2020. If you instituted this total UBI that wouldn't leave much left over to handle everything else that the US has to pay for...military defense, LEO's etc etc. Just the basic things that the US government is supposed to pay for via the Constitution. Simply not possible. And our population is growing. Which would increase the amount needed for a total UBI exponentially. Andrew Yangs form of UBI is the maximum that you could probably do safely.

 

I don't think so. Average rent per month in the US is a little over 1k per month for a one bedroom studio apartment. While 1k might pay for more than just rent in some very small part of the US that isn't the case in the vast majority of the US. According to CBS the cheapest city to live in, in the US, is Wichita, Kan. were the median rent is 650 per month for a two bedroom apartment. Top 10 cheapest U.S. cities to rent an apartment And that was back in 2013. Prices have increased in recent years.

 

The perceived importance of income inequality is derived from Chicago School criminology. It's easily tested. Kwon and Cabrera (2019, Socioeconomic factors and mass shootings in the United States, Critical Public Health, 29: 138-145), for example, find:

"We test these potential connections by examining the incidence rate of mass shootings using random effects negative binomial regressions for a panel data-set that included 3144 counties for the years 1990–2015. According to the adjusted models, income inequality is significantly associated with the three or more victim-related injuries (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11, 1.67; P < .001) and four or more victim-related deaths definition of mass shootings (IRR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.08, 1.64; P < .01). However, poverty rates lack a reliable association with the three or more injuries (IRR = 1.07; 95% CI = .75, 1.39) and four or more deaths definition (IRR = .95; 95% CI = .71, 1.19). When considered in conjunction with the literature on inequality and crime, these results indicate that counties with high inequality may foster an environment of anger and resentment that ultimately leads to mass shootings"

 

Sounds like another reason for the wall, and to stop letting in all those poor peasants. They're liable to become mass shooters!!!!!

 

You could have included a link to the study...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6199901/

However, this idea that wealth inequality results in mass shootings suggests that lefty policies of providing low-income housing in high income areas is just asking for trouble. You're not going to get rid of wealth inequality by giving bums a couple bucks and a ham sandwich because you can afford it. It also goes completely against a UBI where you pay people just enough to survive in high income areas.

It seems to suggest that if you want to stop mass shootings, start getting the young and minorities out of cities. In other words, if you want a UBI, limit it to the sticks. The city slickers don't need to be gunned down every time they head to the local starbucks.

 

As is so often the case with these discussions you’ve left some things off your list of necessities.
Allowing the unemployed sufficient income to present a decent appearance at job interviews.
Allowing the unemployed sufficient income to pay for transport to job interviews.
Allowing the unemployed sufficient income to pay their internet provider thus enabling on-line job searches and applications.

 

Is there really any necessity to refer to the unemployed as ‘bums’?

 

All very much a ramble! Criminology has always acknowledged the importance of socio-economic variable. It of course leads us to an understanding of how neoliberalism goes hand in hand with crime. It also describes the importance of eliminating inequality of opportunity, from discrimination to class divides.

 

Could you please define ‘neo-liberalism’ as used in this context Of late I often encounter very differing usages.

 

Market fundamentalism (with the myth of free market economics used to impose an ideology which coerces greater inefficiency and inequality)

 

It sounds more like lefty cities filled with a bunch of young blacks and bankers isn't a very good mix.

Anyway, you can keep your minorities. We don't need them here in God's country. They can continue to gun down lefties in lefty cities. As the study said, they also found a strong correlation with population density, minorities and the young.

We prefer to keep things simple, and that means your blacks can stay in the cities because slickers don't really matter.

 

Tiresome racist undertone? Sorry, I'm reall not interested in such backwardness. Goodbye.

 

A lot of school shooters were raised by single moms aswell.