They are vindictive assholes who don't want to reward a state that makes some of their products illegal to own in that state?
It was the question
, not a statement. Are they just making an emotional decision or is it really a business decision? If it is an emotional decision, then yes, they are
kind of being vindictive assholes. If they are a national company, then it does not really matter whether their product is available in the state where they are made. It would not be a business decision. It would be spite.
Do you all see the kind of bullshit rhetoric folks try to get away with in a debate like this?
I'm sorry you are so emotional about it that you are having trouble understanding the difference between statements and questions.
Point, Counter-Point. I'm sure these idiots, rednecks and ne'er-do-wells shouldn't have had these guns. They should have waited for the police to save them. Right?
Of course I agree that there are cases where being armed has saved life and property. It can and does happen. But it happens much less often than accidents caused by idiots. And don't get me wrong. Not all gun owners are idiots. Some are responsible people. But a lot are not. That is just basic probability, given that most people are morons.
I looked at the first page of your link. It has 40 instances where gun owners have defended themselves or their property. It dates back to October 9 of 2012. That is a span of 28 weeks. So if those reports are conclusive, and given it is the NRA site I think they are, then guns save 1.4 people per week. The links I provided have reports of the antics of about 50 armed imbiciles per week
. That is, 50 misfires, wounds and people accidentally killed per week
. The data I linked in earlier posts confirms this anecdotal evidence. It shows that being armed does not make you more safe, but less safe and 4.5 times more likely to be shot than someone who is unarmed.
Society has to decide whether that is an acceptable cost-benefit. I don't think it is. I think something needs to be done, I do not necessarily think that means all guns should be banned. Though, I would not have a problem with that.
So let me ask you, do you want irresponsible idiots to be armed or not? Who should not be allowed to own a gun, in your opinion?
Odin, I would genuinely like to have a discussion with you. However, you seem to be going off half-cocked and projecting all sorts of assumptions onto me. It would help us to move forward if you stopped doing that.
Yes, and it is their prerogative to be vindictive.
So in other words, my question was not just "bullshit rhetoric", but one you conclude is right on the money and one you agree with.
Why continue to do business in a hostile state environment?
Because from a business standpoint it makes no sense. Their loss of revenue due to the new laws - and it is dubious as to whether the is any - would be constant whether they manufactured in Maryland or Arizona. There are high costs associated with moving, hiring training etc. So moving despite the costs would indicate they are just...spiteful.