Why Tax cuts on the super rich does not lead to economic growth.

Psychologically when you are facing huge taxes, you will be motivated to bring in more money so that whatever taxes the government imposes upon you, you will end up not affected by it because you made enough money to go home happy without feeling that your profit has decreases because of taxes in any significant way that should make you feel you didn’t earn what you were supposed to earn from your business.

If what you earn from your business is unchecked, or unopposed, that is, nothing decreases it, you will immediately settle for whatever income you are receiving at the moment, with no desire to make anything become bigger. You will always feel guilty if you are making that kind or amount of money without contributing at all to the country which you were able to accomplish all this because of it. Running away from this guilt leads to psychosis or delusions. Some of which may include denial of reality. It is not that you do not deserve to be rich. It is how could you enjoy being that rich when the overwhelming majority of not just humanity but people of your own developed country will consider all their financial problems solved if you throw at them a hundred thousand dollars. How could you feel good because of anything when you did not play your part in decreasing human suffering, at least that which is present in your own country, when there is a chance that you can significantly contribute to decreasing it, without going through any bad effect or consequences concerning your financial freedom. Without your financial freedom being negatively affected in any degree that cannot be regarded as negligible. Charity is not the answer. You don’t have enough time to engage in charity enough to cover all the financial problems that you can solve with your money. And Charity addresses a certain niche or demographic. It does not address the majority of people in your own country. It does not necessarily cover the entire middle class. And it is random and won’t change anything concerning the well being of the entire country in the long term, and is random and will be extremely variable from one rich person to the other, and will be dependent upon how kind your heart is, which is not guaranteed to be present in all super rich people out there, leading to whatever contribution you will make to give back to society not become added to an equivalent contribution back to society from all other super rich people out there, and thus reducing the amount of help that results from your gracious payments, because when becoming singled out, they don’t change enough. Only when everything that you can pay back to society is added to what all the other rich people are able to pay back to society will the resultant amount become huge enough to make a significant and huge positive effect and impact on the developed country that you are a citizen of.
Again, if you are not giving back to society at all, that is, you pay zero percent of your income and profits from your big business in taxes, you will feel guilt on an unconscious level, that will hold you back from expanding your business enough to increase your profits, because deep down inside you feel you are taking more than your fair share of financial freedom, and there is no point in growing your business any further.

But if the country is taxing you severely enough, you will feel that no amount of profit you make will be enough, and there would be a continuous motive, interest, desire, and urge to expand your business, and grow your big business further to no end, because the more your business grows, the more you pay in taxes, and the more you will earn in profit as well, but not enough increase in profits that might make you settle and stop raising your standards. And that makes you feel important, and makes you feel you are contributing enough to society by any kind of growth, expansion, increase, and improvement that occurs in your Business.

This is from a psychological point of view or perspective. If you do not think that this should be the basis upon which our politicians should base their decisions upon, then the following here should cover that aspect of this discussion.

The following is from an article by Patrick W. Watson on Forbes.com
Theory vs. Reality
The Republican plan’s centerpiece is a reduction in corporate tax rates from a 35% top bracket to only 20%. That would put the U.S. more in line with other countries.
What you seldom hear is that most other developed countries also have value-added tax (VAT), a kind of consumption tax. The U.S. doesn’t. Our tax system will remain different, and not necessarily better, under the new proposal.

Anyway, the theory is that lower tax rates will entice businesses to bring back operations they currently conduct overseas. They will build new factories and hire more U.S. workers. Those workers will spend their higher incomes on consumer goods, and we’ll all be better off.
Unfortunately, that thinking has several flaws.
For one, as we saw in the NFIB Small Business Economic Trends report, business owners say that finding qualified workers is their top challenge right now. Reducing corporate tax rates won’t make new workers magically appear, nor will it improve the skills of those already here.
What increasing labor demand might do is spark that inflation the Federal Reserve has wanted for years. There’s also a good chance it could spiral out of control, forcing the Fed to hike interest rates even faster than planned—which could offset any benefit from the tax cuts.
Fortunately, such added labor demand will appear only if businesses respond to the lower tax rates by expanding US production capacity.
Will they? Let’s ask.
A Corporate Tax Cut Won’t Incentive Businesses to Expand
This month, in one of its regular business surveys, the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank asked executives, “If passed in its current form, what would be the likely impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on your capital investment and hiring plans?”
Only 8% of the executives surveyed said the bill would make them increase hiring plans “significantly.” Only 11% said they would significantly increase their capital investment plans. A solid majority answered either “no change” or “increase somewhat.”
Other surveys reached similar conclusions.
White House Economic Advisor Gary Cohn had an awkward moment last Tuesday at a Wall Street Journal CEO Council meeting. Sitting on stage to promote the tax cuts, Cohn watched as the moderator asked the roomful of executives whether their companies would expand more if the tax bill passed.
When only a few hands rose, Cohn looked surprised and said, “Why aren’t the other hands up?”
So maybe they were distracted or needed a minute to think. Fair enough. A few hours later, White House Economist Kevin Hassett appeared at the same event and asked the same audience the same question.
He got the same result: only a few raised hands.
Higher Profit Margins Will Land in Executives’ Pockets
None of this should surprise us. Tax rates are only one factor businesses consider when deciding to expand.
The far more important question is whether consumers will buy whatever the new capacity produces.
Think about it this way: if you’re a CEO and you have difficulty selling your products profitably now, why would lower taxes make you produce more? Even a 0% tax rate is no help if you lack customers.
Former Brightcove CEO David Mendels explained how big companies view this in a November 10 LinkedIn post.
A tax cut for corporations will increase their profitability. Why we should believe that this increase in profitability will lead to wage increases when we have already seen that increases in profitability over the last 10 years did not, but rather went to stock buybacks and dividend increases that benefitted the investors?
As a CEO and member of the Board of Directors at a public company, I can tell you that if we had an increase in profitability, we would have been delighted, but it would not lead in and of itself to more hiring or an increase in wages. Again, we would hire more people if we saw growing demand for our products and services. We would raise salaries if that is what it took to hire and retain great people. But if we had a tax cut that led to higher profits absent those factors, we would ‘pocket it’ for our investors.”
By “pocket it,” Mendels means executive bonuses, share buybacks, or higher dividends. That’s what 10 years of Federal Reserve stimulus produced. A corporate tax cut would likely have a similar effect.
All Options Left Are Bad
I don’t think the House and Senate can agree on any significant tax changes. The two chambers have different political incentives they probably can’t reconcile.
So I think we’ll be stuck with the current tax system. The economy will limp along like it has been and eventually go into recession. The hope-driven asset bubble will pop, hurting many investors.
If I’m wrong and the GOP plan passes in anything like the current form, we will get higher deficits but little additional growth. The tax cuts will flow to asset owners and shareholders, probably blowing the market bubble even bigger. That will make the inevitable breakdown even more painful.
Clearly, we need a better tax system. Other reform ideas exist. Those ideas apparently aren’t attractive to Congress, though. So we’re stuck with either the current broken system or a modified one that will…
put the government even deeper in debt
blow the market bubble bigger
all without helping the economy grow.
Neither scenario is attractive, I know. But those are our choices. You can only pick one.
Or rather, Congress will pick one for you. Let’s hope they choose wisely.
The following is from an article from the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities website:
History shows tax cuts for the rich are far from a surefire way to boost growth — and that higher taxes don’t preclude robust economic and job growth.
Job growth, economic growth, and small business job creation were much weaker following the George W. Bush tax cuts, which gave the biggest boosts to high-income households, than after the Clinton tax increases on high-income households. (See graph.)
After the Bush tax cuts for the very highest-income households expired at the end of 2012, the economy continued to grow and add jobs steadily.
In a comprehensive review of the literature, economists Bill Gale and Andrew Samwick conclude that “growth rates over long periods of time in the U.S. have not changed in tandem with the massive tax changes in the structure and revenue yield of the tax system that have occurred.”
When Kansas enacted large tax cuts overwhelmingly for the wealthy, Gov. Sam Brownback claimed the tax cuts would act “like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy.” But rather than seeing an economic boom since the tax cuts, Kansas’ job growth, economic growth, and growth in small business formation have lagged behind the country as a whole.
These simple relationships aren’t proof that tax cuts are bad for growth, or that tax increases cause growth — many other factors affect the economy at the same time. But they dispel claims that large tax cuts are a silver bullet for the economy.

Research Doesn’t Support “Supply Side” Claims
Careful empirical research finds that tax cuts on high-income people’s earnings or their income from wealth (such as capital gains and dividends) don’t substantially boost work, saving, and investment — contrary to overstated “supply side” predictions.
High-income people are unlikely to increase their work hours due to cuts in their tax rates, research shows. “Overall, evidence suggests [high-income Americans’] labor supply is insensitive to tax rates,” Leonard Burman, co-founder of the Tax Policy Center (TPC), notes.
Tax cuts on capital gains and dividends flow overwhelmingly to the wealthiest filers in the country, but do little to boost saving and investment. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) concludes that capital gains tax rate changes appear to have “little or no effect” on private saving.
Tax economist Joel Slemrod concludes that, “there is no evidence that links aggregate economic performance to capital gains tax rates,” and TPC’s Burman has explained, “there’s no obvious relationship between capital gains, tax rates, and the rate of economic growth.”
The Bush tax cuts included sharp tax cuts on capital gains and dividends that proponents said would spur immediate business growth, but a recent study found “empirical evidence that the 2003 tax cuts had little impact on investment or employment.” And, in the words of The Wall Street Journal, Federal Reserve economists found the 2003 tax cut “was a dud when it came to boosting the stock market.”
Tax cuts for high-income people also aren’t an effective way to encourage entrepreneurship. In fact, on balance, research suggests that “higher tax rates are more likely to encourage, rather than discourage, self-employment,” CRS concludes. One reason why: taxes may reduce earnings volatility. The government bears some of the risk of a new venture by allowing tax deductions for losses and, in return, it taxes the profits of successful businesses.
These research findings also square with renowned investor Warren Buffett’s observation:
“I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 [they are now 15 percent] — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.”
Deficit-Increasing Tax Cuts Likely Hurt Growth
Tax cuts for the rich are likely to hurt growth if they increase deficits or are paired with cuts to investments that help working families and the economy.
Most economists conclude, based on empirical studies, that large increases in deficits reduce national saving, meaning less capital would be available for investment in the economy and interest rates would rise. While interest rates — and the cost of government borrowing — are currently low (and are projected to stay low in the near term under current policies), they would not necessarily stay low if large, long-term tax cuts were enacted without paying for them.
The drag from deficit-increasing tax cuts for the wealthy on the economy is a key reason why the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that allowing the high-income Bush tax cuts to expire and using the savings to cut the deficit would improve long-term economic growth.
Financing tax cuts for the rich by cutting productive public investments that help support growth, such as education, research, and infrastructure, can also harm the economy, research suggests.
A growing body of research suggests that investments in children in low-income families not only reduce poverty and hardship in the near term, but can have long-lasting positive effects on their health, education, and earnings as adults. Cutting programs that support low-income families to fund tax cuts for the rich could therefore also have negative long-run economic impacts.
By contrast, well-designed tax reform could spur growth by eliminating or scaling back inefficient tax subsidies and raising additional revenues to invest in national priorities and reduce deficits.
The following is an article by Derek Thompson on the Atlantic website:
Here’s a brief economic history of the last quarter-century in taxes and growth.

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession.

Does this story prove that raising taxes helps GDP? No. Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts GDP? No.
But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes, and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth.
That was the conclusion from David Leonhardt’s new column today for The New York Times, and it was precisely the finding of a new study from the Congressional Research Service, “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945.”
Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates “have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.” However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have “a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth” or “no effect on economic growth.”

Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90%. Today it’s 35%. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top tenth of a percent fell from about 50% to 25% in the last 60 years, while their share of income increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% before the recession.
Here are two graphs of the top 0.1% and 0.01%. The first shows average tax rates since 1945 — down, down, down. The second shows share of total income since 1945 — up, up, up.

In short, the study found that top tax rates don’t appear to determine the size of the economic pie but they can affect how the pie is sliced, especially for the richest households.
The paper is a good reminder to be humble about taxes as a tool for growing the economy. They remain, above all, a tool for collecting revenue and tweaking incentives for specific economic behavior. Congress has cut tax rates repeatedly over the last 60 years, while the country and the global economy have undergone considerable changes that probably had a greater effect on growth. For years after World War II, the U.S. was a singular economic powerhouse with an enormous manufacturing base that employed nearly 40% of the economy. For the last decade-plus, the economy has grown at a considerably slower pace and the gains have accrued to a smaller and more elite share of the economy.

There are numerous reasons that you may consider to make you stop saying the creative words that you are about to say.

There are always many reasons that can justify why you shouldn’t say what you are about to put in your next creative publication. If you follow these reasons, you will end up not saying anything.

Being creative is about producing. I like to regard creativity as not primarily an act of originality, but an act of productivity. This is why it provides us the creative people with the most reward and dopamine surges. Being creative is considered by our minds to be more productive than if we engaged in any other type or category of accomplishing great stuff. You want to make something exist in the real world because of you, that couldn’t have ever existed in the real world if it weren’t for you and your efforts.

I am only telling you this to help you understand that creativity isn’t about inventing or discovering something new. Creativity largely involves discovering and inventing new stuff, but it does not depend upon that only. The state of being creative is the state of being productive. Not the state of being inventive or seeking to discover something new. Of course if you make any kind of discovery or invention, you will be exercising your creativity in the process and you will be meeting, fulfilling, and satisfying your creativity needs greatly. But if you depend on that only, you will end up starving your creativity needs, because discovering something new involves and aims at other goals, which include coming up with something that makes a difference and makes life better. This should not necessarily be the case with being creative. If your creativity is suspended until you discover something new that is worth showing to the rest of the world, you will rarely be creative, and you will be exercising creativity for reasons that you are already motivated toward them by exercising stuff other than creativity. Hence, your creativity needs will be starving.

Aside from this, let’s assume that the creativity needs are sufficiently satisfied by discovering something new and publishing it to the entire world. Still, your creativity needs will rarely be satisfied because regardless of the rate by which you discover new things, this rate will always be way slower than that which would sufficiently satisfy your creativity needs. Only being hyper productive would make up for this void or lack of enough satisfaction of your creativity needs.
Produce more, and then you will rise up to a mind set or state of creativity that will lead to your mind generating new discoveries, solutions, and creative thoughts by a much larger quantity and quality than your normal.

The idea of religious sin is based on the abuse of making people feel guilty. It is like the mentality that makes you feel guilty all the time is a fertile ground for welcoming religious doctrines. You are mistaken, and the only way to not feel bad because of your mistakes or sins is to be forgiven by the god who has total authority of you and all living beings. By offering them a way to not feel bad because of mistakes, and by also encouraging them to feel bad because of mistakes, religion has made people throughout history strongly and addictively attached to religion. Religion feeds upon you feeling guilty. And encourages you to feel guilty. Then offers you the only way to abolish that sense of guilt, which is God’s forgiveness, which makes you feel like you were just born today, good as new, pure and clean. How does it encourage guilt feelings? It tells you that you are supposed to feel guilty because of disobeying God’s commands. And not just that, it also tells you that the only way to get rid of that same guilt it was responsible for cultivating, encouraging, and nourishing is to ask and beg God for forgiveness. Repent you sinner. This is a recipie for making your mind torn apart, dissipating any chance to attempt addressing any issue through rational, reasonable, or logical ways. The same occurs through religious insistence on the idea that if you do not obey God’s commands and believe in the whole religion and follow it in its entirety you will be sentenced to an eternity of suffering, pain, and torture in Hell, but if you do, you will be granted an eternity in heaven where all your dreams will come true, and whatever that you wish to get will be given to you right away, and you will remain in such happiness for good. This makes you torn apart mentally, leading to the same consequences described earlier, simply put, the inability to exercise reasonableness in anything that you face or deal with.
It is well established in psychology and psychiatry that excessive guilt feelings are symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder. It appears that religion pushes you toward suffering from this disorder until you easily lose any resistance to its doctrines, ideas, commands, and teachings. You become a slave to God. Religion wants you to be excessively guilty all the time, and by association, Religion wants you to be depressed all the time, then you will absorb all the religious indoctrination easily without any resistance.
It is good to understand on the mechanisms by which religion gets to people by abusing, in order to understand how can we counter these twisted methods of mass indoctrinations.
Religion is not the only source of bad ideas and bad stuff that happens in this world, but it certainly destroys your capacity to not produce or accept countless bad ideas and beliefs of your own or of other people.

This is a link to a video from a series of videos I recommed watching before reading the following material.

Aside from all that this dude complained about, the movie was directed well and the visuals were good and massive. It was entertaining to watch and it was enjoyable. That is aside from the fact that the story contained a huge amount of problems and annoying stuff that the guy who made this series of videos explained in enough detail. This movie (The Last Jedi) is terrible, but compared to the previous Star Wars movies, I felt less trapped in below average chains of a typical story of good guys fighting the bad guys. This is so pathetic. And what is even more pathetic that there are people who consider the movies of Star Wars a thing. These Movies helped in presenting and creating a new idea, that if it weren’t rescued and expanded upon by BioWare in Their Old Republic games would be nothing more than the ordinary marvel comics converted into nice looking well acted marvel movies. The Lord of the Rings movies were great because they were a perfect expression of the written story in the visual world. You cannot say the Lord of The Rings movies are bad, even a thousand years later from now. But The Star Wars Movies significantly downplay the importance of the lore and background of what makes the world of Star Wars special. It makes it just about good old rebels fighting the oppressive government, just on a several planet scale. The have reduced the concept of an entire galaxy to some studios and beautiful landscape locations on earth. Even The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion offline game was better and superior to the entirety of the Star Wars Movies produced up until now. Including how open it feels living in this imaginary world. When you try to imagine yourself living in the World of Star Wars, you were always stuck with reliving the severely restricting story of the Star Wars Movies in your head. There was no way you can imagine something in that world aside from the story presented in the movies. That is a problem. You can easily imagine and enjoy yourself living in the shire for example after watching the Lord of The Rings movies. This doesn’t happen with the Star Wars movies. Until BioWare rescued the idea by properly expanding upon it in an epic and massive way in the Old Republic World. Now we can not just enjoy several way better stories and gameplay, but there is an entire galaxy concept with history and living beings and infinite places and cities and landscapes to explore and imagine yourself living in. That is what I call an escape fantasy realm. It happened in the Elder Scrolls, World of Warcraft, Mass Effect, And Star Wars The Old Republic MMORPG, to name a few. And You cannot reach this through any of the Star Wars Movies that have ever been made in so far. The story is always disappointing, and the number of characters who are powerful and that you are regularly exposed to is always too tiny. Powerful entities in the Star Wars movies are extremely and insanely rare. This is incredibly frustrating, infuriating, and mediocre. In the movies, it is always one helpless seemingly powerful old guy on the dark side with only one untrained enough apprentice that are for some reason a threat to the entire galaxy, as if they are unstoppable on their own, like you can’t just nuke the shit out of them when they are just two humans, and one old dude or a bunch of useless indecisive reluctant to do anything that significantly contributes to the story old people who are considered to be the counsel of the good side, barely presented as supposed to be way more powerful than the young heroes of the movies, holding the free spirited young twenty something all powerful single character from saving the galaxy, and it is always a choice between staying a good person, and not succumbing to the dark side because it will make you evil even if it makes you stronger. This is what the entirety of the Star Wars movies is all about and they are not trying to make that change at all. At least up until now. On the other hand, in the Star Wars the Old Republic MMORPG, you get to be in a world were there are countless Jedi and also countless Sith, and there is always countless living being who are still joining either side to train and become either a fully trained Jedi or a fully trained Sith. And it takes years to accomplish that. This concept is discussed in The Phantom Menace movie when the council stated that Anakin Skywalker was too old to begin his Jedi training because he was 10 years old. But the earlier and later trilogies of the Star Wars movies always violated that concept and made it possible for an adult to become super powerful in a few days or weeks, or in Ray’s case, a few hours, without even Luke Skywalker instructing her at all. We rarely see that in The Star Wars The Old Republic MMORPG. You will always be weaker than any Jedi Master if you are a Padawan even if you are potentially the most powerful Force Sensitive being that ever lived, and even if you are the chosen one, and the hero that will single handedly save the entire galaxy. I am not a fan boy, and I am easily disappointed at stuff that doesn’t live to my expectations of what an epic fantasy world is supposed to be, but in this case, if it weren’t for the timely rescue of The Imaginary epic World of Star Wars by BioWare’s Star Wars The Old Republic MMORPG, The Franchise and the entirety of Star Wars would mean only a bunch of movies that were visually ancient and well directed and thrilling and fun to watch, but never a total, full, massive, epic fantasy and imaginary world that you can escape to and enjoy living in it. In the movies it is like the force is some power you own like you got a car or a spaceship and you got to use it wisely and for the greater good. In The MMORPG it is like something that is integrated into your whole being, defines your character, changes you, evolves you, fixes you, runs through you, and you and your powers become one, you really become a powerful being or entity, and not just someone with the decisions that would affect other people on a large scale, which makes you look just like a high ranking military commander or a dictator leader, who is either kind and uses his ‘powers’ and authority for the greater good, or abuses his ‘powers’ and authority and control over others for evil purposes and oppressive agendas. There is no one powerful in the movies. And there is no one who is powerful because of the force in the movies. They are just people in key positions to affect the destiny and fate of the galaxy and what will occur in the whole galaxy. They are not people who did anything because of their extraordinary powers, not even their negotiating powers. This is why I am not a fan of the Movies in general. And that is why I don’t care about the story containing all these flaws and catastrophes. I do not take the movies seriously, and this is why I do not think the Last Jedi is a bad movie. If I did take the movies seriously I would’ve considered the details criticized in this video series to be a huge turn off for me. But I handled this movie like I was watching John Wick, not like watching the Matrix Trilogy. It was fun and entertaining to watch. Aside from this, the entirety of the stories of the Star Wars movies are mediocre, restrictive, restraining, typical, unfulfilling, frustrating, disappointing, poor, scarce, too short, too bugged down on typical black and white moralistic conflicts, ordinary, and sometimes boring and just filling the time till they arrive at the expected typical low quality produced ending that is only intended to make average every day movie consumers happy and not complaining about the endings and not criticizing the movies in any significant or impactful way that decreased the amount of money that they are going to make from behind it. This movie (The Last Jedi) is not significantly worse than how bad any of the other Star Wars movies that came out in so far actually is.

This is outrageous! This is Horrible. Human life is sacred. Stop killing innocent people. This isn’t a way to get your ideas across to the rest of the world. If your ideas are good enough, people will be convinced peacefully. If they are not paying attention to you then work hard until you reach everyone. If your ideas suck they won’t appeal to anyone. If they did, then you are doing something that is bad, but still no harm or violence results from it. If your ideas are good but cannot be spread among the majority of people, don’t resort to violence to make them get to everybody’s head! This will make the good ideas bad because they cannot be adopted without violence. As long as people will not adhere to your ideology except if you apply violence upon them, then your ideology is a bad one, even if it will become good or acceptable ideas when violence becomes removed from them. If your ideas are bad, then don’t spread them, and if it is your right to spread bad ideas, while you know they are really harmful or bad ideas, do not help spread those ideas through violence. Please if you believe your cause is just, stop trying to force people into becoming convinced of your views, stances, theories, or ideology through any violent means. If your cause or ideology is worth accepting, or is worth being held by anyone, violence is an unacceptable means of spreading them and getting them across to the largest number of people. Be patient, and instead resort to peaceful conversation. This is the only way you will not become a horrible criminal or mass murderer because of wanting the greater good for everybody.

That said, something should be done about what is happening. 2 mass shootings are horrible enough to get us to act and change something that would make this not possible in the future. Please value life, and do not defend principles regardless of the current practical situation. If our current Gun control laws aren’t enough to stop incidents like this from occurring, then we should change them or modify them, until such incidents become impossible or almost impossible to occur ever again in the future. Gun ownership might be one of our rights as free people, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and our own principles cannot become the reason for our defeat or doom. You cannot break what is flexible. The value of life surpasses the right to exercise your freedom in owning guns at a time when such incidents happen easily, and we should be flexible enough to adapt to current situations and special circumstances without giving up on the principles that we believe in. This might be even temporary, and is done only because of the current harm from letting everybody exercise his rights to bear arms at such dangerous times in history. We are not giving up on our freedom, and it is possible to learn how to do something that is inconsistent with your identity. The principle will not change in our minds. Only when and where we will apply and practice these principles and concepts will change or be modified to adapt to the current situation and the dangerous or exceptional circumstances that we are all going through at the moment.