So you're saying that California is flourishing because of inherent advantages while others say it's failing because of decades of liberal policymaking.

Somewhere in-between lies reality.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

33,000 people died from being shot in 2016. How many of those would have survived if guns hadn't been on the street?

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Like has been pointed out, it's private enterprise and the state's natural resources that gives California its decent GDP figures.

It's the state with the most agricultural products, the entertainment industry, tourism, Silicon valley...

What does the state do as its responsibility, apart from pass stupid, reckless laws I have posted?

Private citizens are taxed to the hilt (highest state taxes in the US).

Businesses are moving out in their thousands each year due to high taxation. (Cali named worst state for business for 12 years in a row).

But what does the state do with these high taxes?

Awful public transportation and roads.

Rising violent crime and gang activity.

Millions of illegal immigrants – aka Democrat voters – putting a strain on infrastructure and welfare.

Lack of affordable housing to buy or rent.

Chronic homelessness problem, worst in US.

This is Jeremy Corbyn's world.

Edited by Penge Eagle (04 Jan 2018 8.48pm)

It’s not as if public massacres are a thing of the past in Australiaor the UK, is it?

Manchester, Borough Market, Melbourne.

I don’t think we should look down our noses at others when our society produces bloodshed on a regular basis.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

I think there is a case to be made for having professional armed security guards at schools and putting people through gun detection entering and exiting the schools. Just arming staff and teachers is a recipe for disaster. When the solution for school shootings is allowing more guns in schools, its only adding to the problem, because you're creating an environment that allows people to walk into schools with firearms - on the hope they can prevent a shooting and not escalate the problem.

Also its going to be very difficult when the police arrive on scene to ascertain who is the shooter if you have a number of people armed. Not to mention the cost of training and paying staff, who may not be prepaired for becoming a 'milita'.

There are also other measures that don't include arming staff at schools.

Then you have the problem of what to do, when the person who snaps and goes postal is a member of staff.

What really needs to happen is funding, sufficent to ensure that schools are safe from people bringing in firearms and a reduction in the access to firearms - notably to minors and students. But that would a) cost b) cost the gun sales.

Just putting more guns into the equation is an absurdist stance, based on wishful thinking. The goal should be to prevent these things occuring, not creating a scenario where if they do, there is a solution.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]