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

[moda0306]

Freedom Found,

I agree there's a slippery slope with gun control, just as there's a slippery slope with allowing weaponry beyond a certain level.

I don't think a world where people can buy explosive devices... even nukes... is any more appealing than one where all guns are banned outright (I believe they have this in some European countries).... in fact I'd rather live in the latter world, though I find it completely inappropriate to ban all guns.

So neither the gun rights vs gun-control activists have a monopoly on the slippery slope arguments... both sides have extremely compelling points to make about taking the oppositions arguments to their logical conclusion.

I think, much like investing in different assets within the PP, there's a middle-zone where people by-and-large can live freely, hunt, enjoy their hobby and defend their family against criminals, but crazy people and criminals still find it quite difficult to get weapons that deal out massive damage.  Going outside that zone (like letting your PP get way out of balance) deals diminishing returns to one side and vastly expanding risks to the other.

I believe we're pretty safely within that zone.

The bill of rights, not needs, is definitely something to pay attention to, but when dealing with anything from a pocket knife to a fully-automatic assault rifle or even a nuke, there IS room for interpretation and disagreement... remember, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre or verbally threaten somebody else.

[Tortoise]

Most of the "gun-weary" of us have not been arguing much for specific gun laws... but saying that there are things MUCH more important to keeping one's family safe in the real world, and that should be your MAIN consideration when choosing where to live.  California's crime may be bad in some areas, but so are several very conservative states, and there are areas of Cali with very low crime.

I agree completely, Moda. Choosing a low-crime area in which to live should be one's main focus--by far--in keeping one's family safe.

But just because gun-control laws are a secondary safety consideration, they should not be trivialized or ignored completely. Many people view guns for self-defense as a form of insurance. Just as you hope you never need to collect on your home's fire insurance--and probably never will--you'll be darn glad you have it if your home ever catches fire.

Having various types of insurance coverage, including the "insurance" of having a self-defense firearm, helps many people sleep better at night and feel much safer when they go out with their family. Peace of mind is not to be trivialized; for many people, it is a key element in their assessment of quality of life. Right or wrong, rational or irrational, I think that's the human reality of it.

[TripleB]

The bill of rights, not needs, is definitely something to pay attention to, but when dealing with anything from a pocket knife to a fully-automatic assault rifle or even a nuke, there IS room for interpretation and disagreement... remember, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre or verbally threaten somebody else.

There's a victim involved if someone yells fire in a crowded theater. There's a victim if one threatens someone.

There's no victim if someone simply possesses any type of firearm.

That's the difference.

[Freedom_Found]

remember, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre or verbally threaten somebody else.

Actually, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is actually a fire. If somebody does so when there is no fire, they will be subject to the proper punishment after the fact. However, taking away guns from law abiding citizens is akin to putting a gag in the mouth of everyone BEFORE they enter the theater to make sure they won't yell fire.

The correct thing to do is allow patrons to enter the theater with the full capacity to yell "fire" if necessary, not to restrain them "in case" they might do it. Imagine if there was an actual fire, and everyone was bound and gagged and nobody could do anything about it.

Many lives would be lost.

Just, (as can be found over and over again in history,) many lives are typically lost when governments forcibly disarm their citizenry.

[moda0306]

Tortoise,

I agree with guns as insurance.  I am hardly for banning all guns, or even most of them, and I was simply stating that in the context of this thread's original discussion, gun laws should be way down on your list if keeping your family safe is a primary concern.  Taxes and gun laws were listed as Triple B's main two considerations, and I find that to be a bit shocking given the goals of enjoying life and protecting family.

Triple B,

Nobody is really truly harmed by being threatened.  The harm is the fear of something happening to them that society decides is unfavorable, and therefore banned.

Nobody is really truly harmed by me yelling fire in a crowded theater... it's the panic that ensues that could cause people to harm each other.  

In both cases the harm is secondary to the spoken words.

But we don't really even need to argue about that... it's all semantics.


You are saying that we have to assume the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd amendment?  Is allowing personal ownership of nuclear weapons any less extreme than banning all firearms and explosive weapons?

In any stretch of the imagination should we still use the logic that the 2nd amendment is to defend ourselves against our government (which you have claimed) when the government has every form of precise and blunt form of explosive weaponry available?  

Basically, you're applying a certain assumed ridiculous logic to the left, and ignoring how ridiculous the logical conclusions of your arguments are.  There are limitations to every amendment of the constitution.  The president saying "God bless America" is not establishment of religion, "fire" in a theatre isn't protected speech, and the second amendment doesn't give everyone the right to own every form of weaponry imagineable.

There's always a line to draw, and doing so may not be easy, but it's WAY better than either extreme.

[moda0306]

Freedom Found,

While discussing guns in the context of free speech is probably a bit of "square peg round hole," I have to challenge your comparison.

Free speech is punished after the fact if it is deemed to be harmful and outside the realm of free speech.  Gun ownership of certain forms is punishable after the act of ownership of the weapon if deemed to be outside protection of the 2nd amendment and therefore illegalized, because the mere existance and circulation of that weapon in society does two things:

1) Gives crazy people and criminals MUCH more access to very deadly weapons, and
2) Doesn't give the average citizen very much more ability to defend his family vs what less deadly weapon would.

Regardless of these comparisons between speech and gun ownership, it's just as crazy, if not moreso, to allow unlimited ownership of unlimited destructive power, as it is to ban guns altogether.

Further, to your point, there are countries, I believe, that have an all-out ban on guns, but also tend to be low-crime and relatively decent places to live.  Of course, I blame that more on culture than laws.

[Freedom_Found]

Gun ownership of certain forms is punishable after the act of ownership of the weapon if deemed to be outside protection of the 2nd amendment and therefore illegalized, because the mere existance and circulation of that weapon in society does two things:

So in your eyes, the argument is what weapons should be "covered" under the second amendment. The key tactic of gun banning groups is to confuse the public so they can get legislation passed. The Stockton school shooing in CA was done with a semi-automatic rifle. Afterwards, the news coverage showed stock footage of fully automatic weapons being fired, and there were cries for banning "assault weapons" which can be "used to spray bullets from the hip." So, the public votes to ban "assault rifles" thinking they are banning fully automatic weapons (which in reality were ALREADY banned), when in effect they are banning semi-automatic weapons, which (generally) just happen to be colored black. So lets forget the term "assault rifle" because it is essentially meaningless when defining specific characteristics of a weapon.

Do you think there are ANY semi automatic (this means when you pull the trigger, the rifle fires ONLY ONE shot) rifles which shoot bullets of .50 caliber (one half inch in diameter) or smaller, which should NOT be covered under the second amendment? 

[moda0306]

Do you think there are ANY semi automatic (this means when you pull the trigger, the rifle fires ONLY ONE shot) rifles which shoot bullets of .50 caliber (one half inch in diameter) or smaller, which should NOT be covered under the second amendment? 

I do know what a semi-automatic is .  I would tend to say no, but reserve my right to change my opinion as I'm not very educated on what specific things can make a gun signficantly more deadly in an offensive attack, but aid in home defense in a very limited way.  I think as long as you aren't spitting ammo at a high rate, have asininely large/explosive rounds, or have a clip longer than my forearm, you can't do too much damage to the public before they take you out, but you can still adequately defend your home and family. 

The "roaming gang" arguments do have some legitimacy, but those can get just as "slippery" as "defending yourself from gov't" arguments as well... where eventually we're legalizing rocket launchers because gangs might get them in some fathomable future.  I think if we're a lot like Switzerland during WWII, where most of us are savvy with small-to-medium sized weapons that can do a lot of damage from a person's home, we've gotten 99.99% of the way to full defensive freedom without giving bat-sh!t crazy criminals a blank check for destructive behavior.

So, really, I don't think my line is THAT far off from where most pro-gun people would be, though I'd guess that many would allow fully automatic weapons with long clips, and I feel that those skew the cost/benefit ratio too far.  I'm not saying this just to ease us into a full gun-ban.  I truly think there's a balance and that we're not too far off from what it should be, even as ill-educated as most politicians (and myself) may be.

PS... both sides try to confuse the public on the facts.  The NRA would have us believe that we are much safer to have wide-spread gun ownership and cite countries that have low crime and high gun ownership, ignoring countries with very low crime and a full ban on guns. 

[MediumTex]

Gun ownership of certain forms is punishable after the act of ownership of the weapon if deemed to be outside protection of the 2nd amendment and therefore illegalized, because the mere existance and circulation of that weapon in society does two things:

So in your eyes, the argument is what weapons should be "covered" under the second amendment. The key tactic of gun banning groups is to confuse the public so they can get legislation passed. The Stockton school shooing in CA was done with a semi-automatic rifle. Afterwards, the news coverage showed stock footage of fully automatic weapons being fired, and there were cries for banning "assault weapons" which can be "used to spray bullets from the hip." So, the public votes to ban "assault rifles" thinking they are banning fully automatic weapons (which in reality were ALREADY banned), when in effect they are banning semi-automatic weapons, which (generally) just happen to be colored black. So lets forget the term "assault rifle" because it is essentially meaningless when defining specific characteristics of a weapon.

Do you think there are ANY semi automatic (this means when you pull the trigger, the rifle fires ONLY ONE shot) rifles which shoot bullets of .50 caliber (one half inch in diameter) or smaller, which should NOT be covered under the second amendment? 

In my experience, these discussions can get bogged down in any number of ways.

Even if a weapon is legal, it is normally illegal to possess it in certain situations, times or places.  Where these lines are drawn is ultimatetly an arbitrary call without any real logical coherence.

A few examples:

Concealed carry is legal, but there are places you can't go with a concealed firearm.  In some states all you need is a pulse to get a concealed carry license, while in other states it's almost impossible to get one.

Open carry is legal, except where it would create a threat to public order.

A firearm in your vehicle is legal, but only if you are going somewhere where it would be legal to use it.

To buy certain types of firearms you must wait a certain number of days, if you buy it from a certain type of dealer.  If, however, you buy the same weapon from a different kind of dealer in a different situation there is no waiting period at all.

Trying to make sense out of these rules can give you a headache.  Having a logically coherent discussion about them can make you crazy.

Ultimately, an individual's gun rights in the U.S. depends upon the following, which you might be able to convert into some kind of matrix:

1. Who you are and what your background is (mentally ill, felon, etc.).

2. What type of weapon you want to carry/use.

3. How you want to use the weapon (where, when, how you want to fire it).

4. What type of ammunition you want to use.

5. How you want to transport the weapon from place to place.

6. What level of liability you are going to assume for a near-infinite number of potential situations involving the firearm.

I'm sure there are many other variables, but those are just a few that come to mind.

[MediumTex]

I think as long as you aren't spitting ammo at a high rate, have asininely large/explosive rounds, or have a clip longer than my forearm, you can't do too much damage to the public before they take you out, but you can still adequately defend your home and family. 

Just to play devil's advocate here, probably the most dangerous individual/firearm combo is a sniper with a good bolt action rifle and scope in a well-concealed location.  Such a person can inflict a vast amount of harm.

[moda0306]

MT,

You're totally correct.  If somebody wants to kill a lot of people and has the time/intelligence/resolve to do things most criminals/crazies aren't, like find a good sniper hide-out, get the proper gun and maybe a silencer to hide their location longer, and start taking people out, he could probably inflict massive amounts of damage before being killed.

Likewise... who needs real bombs if you can figure out how to build one and sneak it into a football stadium?

Or maybe that poison seed from Breaking Bad in a vat of mashed potatos at a school lunch?

The thing is, as TB pointed out, in spite of these somewhat difficult-to-pull-off events, most often if something isn't relatively convenient to a crazy/criminal, it doesn't get done.  Most criminals are stupid, poor, and lazy, and most crazy people do things on a whim, not calculating things particularly well (note, some DO calculate EXTREMELY well... but they're the minority).  

We can talk about how easy it is for certain people to re-engineer weapons or use chemistry to inflict massive damage, but the point isn't to make it impossible, but incredibly inconvenient, to kill a lot of people (to make it impossible would mean a massive invasion of privacy, observing people in their homes)... many weapons would make it incredibly convenient to pull off these acts, while contributing almost nothing to peoples' realistic ability to defend themselves..

[Freedom_Found]

I think if we're a lot like Switzerland during WWII, where most of us are savvy with small-to-medium sized weapons that can do a lot of damage from a person's home, we've gotten 99.99% of the way to full defensive freedom without giving bat-sh!t crazy criminals a blank check for destructive behavior.

So, really, I don't think my line is THAT far off from where most pro-gun people would be, though I'd guess that many would allow fully automatic weapons with long clips, and I feel that those skew the cost/benefit ratio too far. 

Do you know that fully automatic weapons with "long clips" (aka high capacity magazines) are exactly what the Swiss are mandated to keep in their homes for their "full defensive freedom"? 

[Indices]

I think if we're a lot like Switzerland during WWII, where most of us are savvy with small-to-medium sized weapons that can do a lot of damage from a person's home, we've gotten 99.99% of the way to full defensive freedom without giving bat-sh!t crazy criminals a blank check for destructive behavior.

So, really, I don't think my line is THAT far off from where most pro-gun people would be, though I'd guess that many would allow fully automatic weapons with long clips, and I feel that those skew the cost/benefit ratio too far. 

Do you know that fully automatic weapons with "long clips" (aka high capacity magazines) are exactly what the Swiss are mandated to keep in their homes for their "full defensive freedom"? 

That being said, Switzerland is about as far away from a libertarian governed country as is possible.

[moda0306]

Do you know that fully automatic weapons with "long clips" (aka high capacity magazines) are exactly what the Swiss are mandated to keep in their homes for their "full defensive freedom"?  

No, I did not, and in some ways that's pretty cool, considering the Swiss are just a surreal society to me.  The fact the Germans never invaded them leaves me with quite a bit of curiosity in terms of their history.

That said, I simply think that fully automatic, high-capacity firearms are quite possibly excessive in risk/reward.  I'll admit, though, they're on the margin of what I'd consider appropriate, so I'm not coming in with a very confident decision here... just my general impression that if you have a semi-auto high-powered rifle with a 10-round clip at your home, you are about as safe as you could be.

In fact, I want to get a couple of hand guns for me and my wife, as well as a rifle, to compliment my .22 rifle and shotgun... neither of which would be ideal in defending my home or family.

I think a public that knows how to use guns is one of the best national defense strategies we can have.

[Freedom_Found]

The fact the Germans never invaded them leaves me with quite a bit of curiosity in terms of their history.

It's even more amazing when you look at a map of western Europe, and think of it in WWII terms. Switzerland is bordered with Germany to the north, France to the west (occupied by Germany), Italy to the south (occupied by Germany) and Austria (also occupied by Germany) to the east. They were completely surrounded on every side, and yet did not get invaded. Not a single Swiss Jew was killed by the Germans during the war.

Britain, on the other hand banned it's citizens from owning guns, as they still do. When they were on the edge of being invaded by Hitler, they pleaded with the US to send them as many guns as possible. "Gun drives" were held here, and citizens donated their private arms to be shipped to Britain's people, so they could defend against the coming invasion. After the war, the British government went around to their citizens (oops.. I mean subjects) and collected all these guns and had them melted down into scrap.

Makes you want to go back in time and bop them over the head and be like "REALLY????" "Did you learn ANYTHING???"

[stone]

Hitler did not choose to engage in war with the UK, the UK declared war against Germany (much as the USA did). Switzerland didn't. I'm certain that had Switzerland sent troops out of Switzerland to fight the Germans, then Switzerland would have been swiftly occupied by Germany. Ireland was also neutral in WWII. Ireland had essentially zero weaponry and Germany did not invade them. Germany only fought countries that had what Germany wanted or that picked a fight with Germany. Switzerland only contains Swiss people and what Germany wanted was looted commodities from Russia in the way that the UK, France, Belgium etc  got commodities from Africa. Germany wanted a lucrative empire not to engage in non-strategic skirmishes.

Personally I think that the UK has many things to be ashamed of about WWII. There was lobbying to bomb the railway tracks to Auschwitz and the UK resisted that. The UK made it very hard for Jewish refugees to come to the UK. Three million people died during the 1943 Bengal famine that was largely a result of British mal-administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

[TripleB]

Hitler did not choose to engage in war with the UK, the UK declared war against Germany (much as the USA did). Switzerland didn't. I'm certain that had Switzerland sent troops out of Switzerland to fight the Germans, then Switzerland would have been swiftly occupied by Germany.

I'm not so sure. Switzerland is a country surrounded by mountains where everyone has rifles. That doesn't seem to be a place easy to occupy.

[stone]

Triple B, don't you agree that in Afghanistan, the Taliban etc  have realized that IEDs not guns are what the US military fears?

Leaving aside whether there is any point in having capacity to inflict violence on the US military, if you were to wish to do that, guns don't seem the way to do it.

[MachineGhost]

The bullets are locked up though and I believe the terrain is mountainous.  So its not a stellar example.

MG

Hitler did not choose to engage in war with the UK, the UK declared war against Germany (much as the USA did). Switzerland didn't. I'm certain that had Switzerland sent troops out of Switzerland to fight the Germans, then Switzerland would have been swiftly occupied by Germany.

I'm not so sure. Switzerland is a country surrounded by mountains where everyone has rifles. That doesn't seem to be a place easy to occupy.