Anyone Notice: High Tax States = Reduced Value For Residents?

[Freedom_Found]

That is good, police should have several different levels of response, which can be matched to the appropriate threat level faced. But notice you said "over their hand guns." They are by no means choosing to disarm themselves, and neither am I. You can bet if they come across a criminal who pulls out a gun at them, they will not choose the taser over their handgun for defense.

When I live in an area where no violent crimes have happened in the last 100 years, where criminals pour through the penal code book to decide what they can and can't do, and where gov't shows no signs of expanding it's grasp at every turn, I may think about not needing guns.

Until then, I appreciate your statement that I should "protect myself however I see fit." That is exactly what I shall do.

[TripleB]

Don't worry, many police officers are already realizing this, on their own, and are now choosing to pull out their Tasers over their hand guns for everyday law enforcement. Taser itself claims that more than 500,000 law enforcement officers in the United States, in more than 16,000 law enforcement agencies, now carry Tasers.

I'm not convinced that one needs use deadly force to defend themselves.

Officers don't "realize" anything on their own. They carry what they are mandated to carry and use what they are mandated to use based on their department's use of force matrix.

The standard of practice with Taser usage is that it's a 2 officer protocol. One officer has a Taser in hand, and the second officer has their handgun drawn on the suspect. If the taser fails to stop the suspect, the second officer may use lethal force as necessary.

One major downside of Tasers that I've personally witnessed is over-reliance. The Taser is becoming the first tool in hand when other tools may be more appropriate and this may be negatively impacting officer safety.

[stone]

Triple B, you hope to be able to use your guns to, "Prevent against the formation of an armed oppressive government as the 2nd amendment specifically intended".

I still don't see clearly how that would come about. Any future oppressive government would presumably form from a dominant part of the American population. You would be fighting illegally against your fellow Americans. You would be in a situation similar to the situation Martin Luther King would have been in had he had a dream and got out an AK47 to try and realize it. I just can't picture it working.

[Storm]

Your freedom to do what exactly?  Wave a high powered assault rifle in the air while shouting fire in a crowded theatre?  California follows the same US constitution and bill of rights as the other 49 states.  

People who don't actually own and shoot guns in real life basically get everything they "know" about them from the movies. Herein lies the problem. Waving a rifle around in a crowded place has zero to do with the actual situation. A gun is like a seat belt. I'm sure (if you have any sense at all) you wear your seat belt every time you drive anywhere. The chances of you being in a collision which is severe enough for your seat belt to save your life or keep you from being ejected from the vehicle are very, very small. But the one in a million times when you DO need it (which will likely be for only a fraction of a second), you'll be darn glad you had it.

I agree with everything you said.  I actually own and shoot guns, and believe in keeping them as a seat belt.  I believe every house needs a rifle and a handgun.  The rifle is for hunting or long distance shooting and the handgun is for self defense in close quarters.  California does not prevent me from owning either one of those.  Sure, it might prevent me from owning an assault rifle, but I can't own a mortar, C4, nuclear warheads, or any number of military ordinances as well.

I personally don't feel that California's gun laws infringe on my right to protect my family.  Do you feel that you really need a 7.62 caliber rifle to protect your family?  What type of armed force exactly do you think is going to invade your home?  My little .40 Ruger can protect my family very well, thank you very much, and it isn't illegal in California.  For anything larger like a gang of roaming zombies I might need to call in the national guard...

[TripleB]

I personally don't feel that California's gun laws infringe on my right to protect my family.  Do you feel that you really need a 7.62 caliber rifle to protect your family?  What type of armed force exactly do you think is going to invade your home?  My little .40 Ruger can protect my family very well, thank you very much, and it isn't illegal in California.  For anything larger like a gang of roaming zombies I might need to call in the national guard...

It's a shame that you live in the state with the nicest weather in the country, but your entire family is bound to your home. Since California does not typically issue concealed carry permits, your right to protect your family with your Cali-legal Ruger .40 is limited to your home.

Over 30 states in the US have "shall issue" CCW permits that make you able to protect your family while you are outside your home. California is not one of them.

[moda0306]

Bound to your home? 

Never have I felt that way in Cali.

[Freedom_Found]

Bound to your home?   

Never have I felt that way in Cali.

What triple B is referring to is that certain counties in CA absolutely will not issue you a concealed carry permit. So, as soon as you cross over your property line with a loaded weapon, you are now a criminal. So, if you feel that this law has no effect on your ability to protect your family, you must never leave your property.

[Storm]

I personally don't feel that California's gun laws infringe on my right to protect my family.  Do you feel that you really need a 7.62 caliber rifle to protect your family?  What type of armed force exactly do you think is going to invade your home?  My little .40 Ruger can protect my family very well, thank you very much, and it isn't illegal in California.  For anything larger like a gang of roaming zombies I might need to call in the national guard...

It's a shame that you live in the state with the nicest weather in the country, but your entire family is bound to your home. Since California does not typically issue concealed carry permits, your right to protect your family with your Cali-legal Ruger .40 is limited to your home.

Over 30 states in the US have "shall issue" CCW permits that make you able to protect your family while you are outside your home. California is not one of them.

I actually don't live in Cali - I live in Connecticut which allows me to have a CCW if I want.  I still can't carry it on most private property including churches, malls, schools, and most businesses, so I'm not sure what benefit it gives me.

Really, I enjoy shooting at targets at the gun club every week, and I'm just as much of a bill of rights fanatic as the rest of you, but I don't understand this obsession with being heavily armed at all times.  I pick and choose my level of defense based on the situation - and personally, I choose not to put myself in a situation where I need to use defense in the first place.

For example, New Haven CT, which is a few miles away from me, has had 33 shooting murders in the current year.  They are setting new records for violent crime.  Personally, this has zero effect on me whatsoever, because I do not choose to drive my car into downtown New Haven and hang out on the street corner chatting with my "buddies" that are slinging rocks of crack.  By simply choosing to keep myself and my family in a safe and secluded suburb, I avoid the entire need to place them in the path of where bullets might be flying, and by so doing, I no longer need to carry a weapon to protect them from any bullets that might be flying.

I'll admit that having a gun when someone is mugging you with a knife is a pretty good situation to be in, as far as preparedness goes, but I believe that simply not going to the neighborhood where the guys with knives hang out is a much better solution.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[TripleB]

For example, New Haven CT, which is a few miles away from me, has had 33 shooting murders in the current year.  They are setting new records for violent crime.  Personally, this has zero effect on me whatsoever, because I do not choose to drive my car into downtown New Haven and hang out on the street corner chatting with my "buddies" that are slinging rocks of crack.  By simply choosing to keep myself and my family in a safe and secluded suburb, I avoid the entire need to place them in the path of where bullets might be flying, and by so doing, I no longer need to carry a weapon to protect them from any bullets that might be flying.

I'll admit that having a gun when someone is mugging you with a knife is a pretty good situation to be in, as far as preparedness goes, but I believe that simply not going to the neighborhood where the guys with knives hang out is a much better solution.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Interesting that you presumably don't believe in Market-Timing (or you wouldn't be here in the PP forum) but you do believe in "market-timing" with your family's safety.

HB says that no one can know what asset to invest in at any given time. For example, if you knew for sure that gold would be the best asset in 2012, you would go with Gold 100% and ignore the other assets. Of course no one can possibly know. If someone could know where crime would occur, then everyone would avoid those places, and there would be 0 crime.

Sure, you can reduce risk by avoiding high-crime areas, much like you can avoid risk by avoiding shitty asset classes like high-yield junk bonds. However, the PP is a multi-tier approach. You pick the right asset classes, and you split within them, and you rebalance.

For personal safety, a PP approach would be:

1) Avoid high-crime areas
2) Train in self-defense tactics
3) Carry a firearm and a folding knife

Simply avoiding the high-crime areas doesn't preclude you from being a victim. An alarming trend in violent attacks in the last 2 years has been non-financial motivated attacks, where a group of youths physically attack someone and run away. The motivation is purely sociopathic enjoyment and earning "street cred."

As much as I'd like to think I can fight off 4 teenage hooligans with my barehands, the reality is this is a lethal force scenario. There's a high risk of winding up paralyzed from the neck down if you get kicked in your spine when you're down.

[Storm]

Simply avoiding the high-crime areas doesn't preclude you from being a victim. An alarming trend in violent attacks in the last 2 years has been non-financial motivated attacks, where a group of youths physically attack someone and run away. The motivation is purely sociopathic enjoyment and earning "street cred."

As much as I'd like to think I can fight off 4 teenage hooligans with my barehands, the reality is this is a lethal force scenario. There's a high risk of winding up paralyzed from the neck down if you get kicked in your spine when you're down.

Ok, exactly how many of such attacks have occured in the US in the last year?  And, out of 300 million US residents, how many victims are there?  I've actually spent more time writing this short reply than I should have spent worried about such amazingly unlikely attacks.

Some people get eaten by sharks when they swim in the ocean by Florida.  Does it mean they should carry a harpoon so they can try to kill the shark?  Maybe a better solution is to just not swim in the shark-infested waters.

[Freedom_Found]

Storm, your strategy of avoiding putting yourselves in risky situations is a good one, but I don't understand why this provides a justification for remaining defenseless, when you could just as easily be defend-able. While we all "try" to avoid risky situations, sometimes it's just not possible. Home invasions happen in the nicest neighborhoods around. Do you think that homes in Beverly Hills are NEVER broken into?

Let's go back to the seat belt analogy. You decide to drive only on straight, level highways, with a divider between traffic directions, and you drive only during the day, and always remain at the speed limit. You've greatly reduced your chances of an accident.

Meanwhile, along comes some politician who decides he hates seat belts. He passes a ban on seat belts, which must be removed from all cars immediately. Now, you've already made some safe decisions, but what about that rare situation where a tire suddenly blows out, or there's that unexpected patch of ice covering the road...or whatever. Don't you want that seat belt then? Why shouldn't you be able to have it? The odds of the accident might be low, but if and when you ARE the one that it happens to, it doesn't matter much what the odds are. Ask anyone who's won the lottery.

Bottom line is that the only purpose that disarming law abiding citizens serves is to allow people who are uncomfortable with the idea of guns to "feel better." What they don't realize is that criminals (by nature) don't follow the law, and will get guns illegally no matter what. So the only people you are disarming, are the ones on the GOOD side of the law.

[Freedom_Found]

California... might prevent me from owning an assault rifle, but I can't own a mortar, C4, nuclear warheads, or any number of military ordinances as well.

Do you feel that you really need a 7.62 caliber rifle to protect your family?  What type of armed force exactly do you think is going to invade your home?

I have to answer this one also, because I believe it brings up another important issue. 10 round magazine limits.

As you (may or may not) know, the military and police both prefer and use 30 round magazines. Through extensive studies and operational experience, they have found that 30 rounds are the safest choice when their lives are on the line. In almost all states (except for a few liberal exceptions) there are no restrictions on magazine capacity. CA has decided to limit all magazines to 10 rounds maximum.

So, while my life may be on the line, some politician has decided that I am not entitled to the same choice. That my life must not be worth as much as theirs is.

Meanwhile, any criminal can drive to any state bordering CA, pick up as many high capacity magazines as they want (with absolutely no ID required) and bring them back into the state for use in their criminal endeavors. Like I said in my post above, laws only affect those that choose to follow them.

[stone]

I can totally understand the recreational aspect of gun ownership. Recreation is important- life should be fun. I also sort of understand the personal defense against criminals idea. I'm still flumuxed though by the idea that guns might protect against some future oppressive government. To my mind trying to take on the US military with a gun sounds as silly as having a sword or boomerang. Non-violent protest would be so much more effective. If, for whatever reason, you didn't feel willing to use non-violent protest- then guns would still be ineffectual wouldn't they? All "effective" violent engagement with the US military has been with IEDs hasn't it? The fact that gun enthusiasts go to the firing range rather than some IED workshop makes me think that the "protection against a future oppressive government" theme is not heartfelt.

[Storm]

Meanwhile, along comes some politician who decides he hates seat belts. He passes a ban on seat belts, which must be removed from all cars immediately. Now, you've already made some safe decisions, but what about that rare situation where a tire suddenly blows out, or there's that unexpected patch of ice covering the road...or whatever. Don't you want that seat belt then? Why shouldn't you be able to have it? The odds of the accident might be low, but if and when you ARE the one that it happens to, it doesn't matter much what the odds are. Ask anyone who's won the lottery.

To use your seat belt analogy, I'm perfectly fine driving with my standard shoulder and lap belt with supplemental air bags (my .40 handgun).  Some politician came along and outlawed those safety harnesses that Formula 1 drivers wear.  Does that mean I can't protect myself?  I'm perfectly fine with wearing the seat belt I'm wearing.  Why do I need an F1 safety harness?  I don't plan on hitting a barrier doing 200 mph.

[Storm]

I can totally understand the recreational aspect of gun ownership. Recreation is important- life should be fun. I also sort of understand the personal defense against criminals idea. I'm still flumuxed though by the idea that guns might protect against some future oppressive government. To my mind trying to take on the US military with a gun sounds as silly as having a sword or boomerang. Non-violent protest would be so much more effective. If, for whatever reason, you didn't feel willing to use non-violent protest- then guns would still be ineffectual wouldn't they? All "effective" violent engagement with the US military has been with IEDs hasn't it? The fact that gun enthusiasts go to the firing range rather than some IED workshop makes me think that the "protection against a future oppressive government" theme is not heartfelt.

Stone, that was really well put.  To be honest, there is no need to have a gun to overthrow an oppressive government.  Look at Egypt.  All that you need are a few thousand people willing to get beaten, tear gassed, and possibly die, and the government will be overthrown by the populist anger of the rest of them.

[TripleB]

Non-violent protest would be so much more effective. If, for whatever reason, you didn't feel willing to use non-violent protest- then guns would still be ineffectual wouldn't they? All "effective" violent engagement with the US military has been with IEDs hasn't it? The fact that gun enthusiasts go to the firing range rather than some IED workshop makes me think that the "protection against a future oppressive government" theme is not heartfelt.

How well did non-violent protests work in Germany for the Jews in the 1940s?

Why did we need to send our military to Iraq? Why not just send Martin Luther King's biography translated into Farsi so they could have learned how to use non-violence against Saddam?

What's stopping the US government or any government from doing whatever they want? It's not the constitution. And it's not the "threat of non-violent protesting."

[Storm]

Non-violent protest would be so much more effective. If, for whatever reason, you didn't feel willing to use non-violent protest- then guns would still be ineffectual wouldn't they? All "effective" violent engagement with the US military has been with IEDs hasn't it? The fact that gun enthusiasts go to the firing range rather than some IED workshop makes me think that the "protection against a future oppressive government" theme is not heartfelt.

How well did non-violent protests work in Germany for the Jews in the 1940s?

Why did we need to send our military to Iraq? Why not just send Martin Luther King's biography translated into Farsi so they could have learned how to use non-violence against Saddam?

What's stopping the US government or any government from doing whatever they want? It's not the constitution. And it's not the "threat of non-violent protesting."

How well do you think armed Jewish protestors would have fared against the full might of the German army?  Or the Iraqis, who were armed, how well did they fare against Sadam?  Contrast with Egypt and which one overthrew their government successfully?

[stone]

How well did non-violent protests work in Germany for the Jews in the 1940s?
Why did we need to send our military to Iraq? Why not just send Martin Luther King's biography translated into Farsi so they could have learned how to use non-violence against Saddam?
What's stopping the US government or any government from doing whatever they want? It's not the constitution. And it's not the "threat of non-violent protesting."

I'm not saying people shouldn't be defiant and stick up for themselves and I'm not saying doing so against a tyranical system doesn't require great courage. I'm just saying non-violence has more chance of actually working than taking pot shots with -lets face it- ineffective weapons.
The holocoust was a truely horrible part of human history. I think though you are right to bring it up as the kind of thing that people have had to face and may have to face again. I agree with Storm's point that even had the Jews shot some Nazis, it would probably have made zero difference. Had the Jews all fearlessly marched and appealed to the humanity of the German general population, then possibly that also wouldn't have made any difference. But perhaps it might have.
Gandhi claimed that WWII could have been fought and won entirely by non-violent means. Remember governments and armies are composed of people. People are seldom all bad. They find it much harder to kill someone who is standing up to them unarmed and peaceful than someone who is shooting at them. Indian independance was won by non-violence. It involved people literally marching into a hail of bullets. But they won and with far fewer casualties than most wars of independance.
To answer your question, there is nothing stopping the government from doing what they want. The key is to make sure that what they want to do is what is right.

[Freedom_Found]

Speaking of guns, Jews and the holocaust, study history and you will find they are all closely related. At the end of Schindler's list, he makes that speech to all of his Jewish factory workers. In the liberal hollywood version of the movie, that is the end. In real life, he handed out a gun to each and every one of them. They don't want to send that kind of message so they distort history to tell only the part of the story they want you to hear.

One of the first actions taken against Jews was to prevent them from owning firearms.

The Japanese generals ruled out invading the US during WWII because there would be "a gun behind every blade of grass." It's well documented in their memoirs.

For all those who think, "well, that can't happen here," I can drive less than 200 miles north from my house and go visit a "Japanese Internment Center" which is basically a nazi style prison camp where Japanese were imprisoned during the war for the simple reason that they were Japanese.

[stone]

This re-enactment of a key part of the Indian independance stuggle sums it up for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_EUuAZZ ... re=related

Freedom Found:-Schindler may have believed that guns would have helped the Jews. That doesn't mean he was right.
Are you claiming that Japanese Americans in WWII could have used guns to prevent their internment?

Apparently many people on the Manhattan Project had relatives caught up in the holocaust and were disapointed that the atom bomb wasn't developed in time to use against the Nazis. I'm not sure what proportion of the Manhattan Project scientists were Jews but it was a lot of them.

[stone]

I think Afgahnistan is a good example. It shows that:
a) A population can be unconquorable by being willing to rise up with weapons.
b) It doesn't help them avoid having their country made an utter nightmare for 30+ years.
c) Individuals who mean business about taking on an army do not, in 2011, use guns. They use IEDs.

[TripleB]

How well do you think armed Jewish protestors would have fared against the full might of the German army?

It's hard to imagine that could have possibly done any worse than 6 million casualties while costing the Nazis none in the process.

[stone]

Triple B, non-violent protest doesn't mean not making a stand. I agree, if you don't make a stand, you can get trampled on.

[TripleB]

Triple B, non-violent protest doesn't mean not making a stand. I agree, if you don't make a stand, you can get trampled on.

Please elaborate. How does one take a stand in a non-violent way and how could Jews have taken a non-violent stand against Hitler?

[stone]

Triple B, check out this re-enactment of a key part of the Indian independance stuggle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_EUuAZZ ... re=related

How could anything be described more as making a stand than that. Being fearless like them makes violence redundant.

I feel uncomfortable with making comments about the holocaust because it is still such a raw subject for so many people. Gandhi did say that he believed that non-violence would have been the most effective weapon against the Nazis. Nazi Germany was populated with people. There was humanity within them that might have been drawn out by highly visible non-violent defiance in the style of the Indian independance struggle or your 1960's Martin Luther King etc.

I would say that Egypt up to this year was an example of people not making a stand and so getting trampled on. They then made a non-violent stand and won.