The Police Data Accessibility Project

I'm not so sure about that, due to the nature of his business (plumbing).

There will be two broad categories of taxes that will be lost when a business moves away from San Francisco.

1. Taxes that are paid by the business itself, and

2. Taxes paid by individual employees of that business, such as income taxes and sales taxes, if those employees move with the business.

I'm not too familiar with San Francisco business taxes, but a brief bit of searching suggests that the bulk of it is a gross receipts tax and business personal property tax.

A plumbing business leaving San Francisco doesn't change the amount of plumbing that needs to be done in San Francisco, so presumably money that would have went to his gross receipts had he stayed just ends up in the gross receipts of some other plumber. I don't know if the gross receipts tax is flat or progressive, but if it is then the city might actually collect more on gross receipts with him gone.

The city will lose out on business personal property tax because presumably much of that goes with the business when it moves to Utah. Whatever plumbers in San Francisco get the work that would have went to him might need to increase their business personal property some, but it probably won't be enough to offset what is lost. A smaller number of bigger plumbers are going to be more efficient in this regards than a larger number of smaller plumbers, so any consolidation should lower the total amount of business personal property.

For the individual taxes, there are two groups to consider. First, employees who leave rather than move with the business. These probably have little impact. They still pay sales and income taxes--they just get the money for that from their new employers.

Second, there are the employees who move with the business. Their income tax and sale tax is lost.

If the city was hitting them with $1k/month in fines, that's $12k/year. Googling tells me the city income tax is a flat 1.5%, and the sales tax is 0.25%.

Let's assume that these employees spend half their taxable income on things subject to sales tax. Then they need to be making about $740k aggregate taxable income for their income plus sale taxes to be more than the parking fines. By "taxable income" I mean whatever it is that San Francisco charges 1.5% on.

I'm steeped deep in gun culture in Texas, most of my friends online are in gun culture. We are all universally outraged by what happened to George Floyd and to others. The majority of us do not support looting and pillaging, but we do support the message of the protests. In fact, the gun community has been advocating for something to be done about police militarization and the negative side effects of the War on Drugs for decades.

It is this weird thing how political divisions work, because so many people on the Left in this country assume "gun owner" == "racist white man, thin blue line, thank you for your service".

The reality is a sizable proportion of gun owners in America are lumped into a generic "conservative" bucket because of some specific issue viewpoints, which have nothing to do with actual worldview. By and large, gun owners tend to be more Libertarian than conservative, and as such view the government and the police with distrust. They view people breaking the law with even more distrust, which is why they may often support the police, but they do not support police brutality and they have deep concerns about policing in America.

It was the Libertarian think-tank The Cato Institute that spent years collating every single failed no-knock raid in America and mapping them. It's Libertarian writers like Radley Balko who've published multiple books on police misconduct. These groups and people who are opposed to police misconduct on the grounds of preserving liberty are part of gun culture.

It's really weird to me being in the tech industry as I see it's shift Leftward politically and being inundated with utterly ridiculous caricatures of people who hold similar viewpoints to me. Gun owners aren't a homogenous group, and by and large your caricature of a racist Elmer Fudd is grossly inaccurate. I have most of my teeth, am educated, work in a knowledge field, am politically active in causes which matter to me, most of which align with the positions of the Left somewhat ironically, and yes I own guns.

The real reason gun owners aren't starting an insurrection is because we have too much to lose and very little to gain. The reason CHL holders are the demographic with the lowest crime rate in the US, and why most gun owners own many guns (which are expensive, by the way) is because as a cohort we are people who uphold order, make prudent financial and life decisions, and take our responsibilities seriously (because of course, we regularly handle deadly weapons). Insurrection has a nearly incalculable cost in human lives, has no guarantee of the end result being a better system, and essentially ends every positive thing that currently exists in your life in the blink of an eye. As you said, the 2A isn't an affirmative defense in court if you go around shooting government employees, so only people who are so thoroughly radicalized that they've effectively already distanced themselves out of society and thrown their lives away are willing to be the one to fire the first shot.

It has basically nothing to do with political affiliations and everything to do with common sense and basic prudence.

1. End the war on drugs 2. Fire bad cops 3. End Qualified Immunity 4. End Civil Asset Forfeiture 5. Collect stats on every-time police force is used