To start a business you need a business friendly environment
Except you people's idea of "business friendly" often involves bending over backwards to suck the dick of businesses, and fucking over everyone else. California is not "business unfriendly" unless you think actually treating workers like people, and actually watching out what you do to the environment are "unfriendly" policies.
Yes, I know what the fucking phrase is in reference to. I'm saying it has no fucking relevance to these events. Your example of the US media is not accurate.
Bullshit. If you are facing a bad guy intent on doing you harm, you are far better off the the most efficient and effective means of self defense available to you.
Except now you've given the criminal a much better reason to try and kill you.
So you want anyone to be able to take your stuff at their leisure?
Where did he say that? Oh wait, he didn't. What he said is that he values his physical well being far, far more than he does material shit. He, like most people, would far rather the thief get away with some of his material possessions, which likely can be replaced, than seriously injure or kill him.
What if they would like to rape your family?
This is soooooo un-fucking-likely that you using it as an example shows that you've run out of talking points.
Again, you're assuming that people WANT to commit murder. If you're a small scale thief, one of the last things you want is a murder. Small scale theft can be hard to solve, in part because resources are typically not expended on it, while murder, especially gun murder in a place where guns aren't common, would have significantly more resources expended, vastly increasing the likelihood you'll be caught and made to rot in jail.
The other side of the coin is that, since George Zimmerman was carrying a gun, and shot and killed Martin, we only have Zimmerman's side of the story to go on. I've seen references to gun self defense teachings/materials which state that it is far better to kill your attacker rather than incapacitate them, because then they can't tell their side of the story, and yours is the only one to go off of.
Slashdot Mirror
California property taxes [...] are the highest in the nation
No, they're not. And that statement proves you don't live here, as you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
To start a business you need a business friendly environment
Except you people's idea of "business friendly" often involves bending over backwards to suck the dick of businesses, and fucking over everyone else. California is not "business unfriendly" unless you think actually treating workers like people, and actually watching out what you do to the environment are "unfriendly" policies.
No huge budget deficit, ultra conservative politicians
Your first one is a lie, and your second one is a reason to stay the fuck away.
Because smaller areas usually don't have the opportunities big cities have, job wise, cultural wise, and activity wise.
And likely there is a tiny sliver of the different cultures around, and a fraction of things to actually do.
They're only success stories if you're not concerned about people leaving the city.
California is so business-unfriendly that I am shocked no one is mentioning it.
No, it's not. We just actually require businesses to be responsible.
Because most of us fail to see why this shit should be allowed. Why should you be able to live there over me, simply because you have more money?
It is, however, much less likely. You're selecting out a significant amount of the population, thus lowering the possible diversity.
Because most of the diversity won't stay in SF, and SF itself would be considerably less diverse.
There's as much diversity there as there is with a whole bunch of Caucasians of European descent.
Perhaps they actually care that normal people can afford to live there, too? Not everyone is rich.
The NRA is devoted to gun rights. The fact that they have other beliefs as well does NOT change this fact.
Yes, I know what the fucking phrase is in reference to. I'm saying it has no fucking relevance to these events. Your example of the US media is not accurate.
Bullshit. If you are facing a bad guy intent on doing you harm, you are far better off the the most efficient and effective means of self defense available to you.
Except now you've given the criminal a much better reason to try and kill you.
Texas and Florida have gun ownership rates comparable to Switzerland. Yet Texas and Florida also have vastly higher violent crime rates.
So you want anyone to be able to take your stuff at their leisure?
Where did he say that? Oh wait, he didn't. What he said is that he values his physical well being far, far more than he does material shit. He, like most people, would far rather the thief get away with some of his material possessions, which likely can be replaced, than seriously injure or kill him.
What if they would like to rape your family?
This is soooooo un-fucking-likely that you using it as an example shows that you've run out of talking points.
Again, you're assuming that people WANT to commit murder. If you're a small scale thief, one of the last things you want is a murder. Small scale theft can be hard to solve, in part because resources are typically not expended on it, while murder, especially gun murder in a place where guns aren't common, would have significantly more resources expended, vastly increasing the likelihood you'll be caught and made to rot in jail.
Considering the types of arms the government has, compared to the types of arms an average citizen would have, no, I don't think they are.
Here, when a home owner kills an intruder, we call that a Happy Ending.
Only a sick, sick fuck would think that.
Yes, but you have to admit that guns make the killing incredibly easier.
Does that right to defend yourself, because it's "your body" include doing harm to, or even killing someone else?
We actually do have the right to lie about firearms, or about anything really. It's called "free speech".
You would be extremely hard pressed to argue that "Free Speech" includes the right to lie.
That's the fucking problem: Because of the gun, we only have one side of the story.
The other side of the coin is that, since George Zimmerman was carrying a gun, and shot and killed Martin, we only have Zimmerman's side of the story to go on. I've seen references to gun self defense teachings/materials which state that it is far better to kill your attacker rather than incapacitate them, because then they can't tell their side of the story, and yours is the only one to go off of.