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

[stone]

The couple of times I've been mugged, I've just handed over whatever I had on me so as to get the whole thing over with. Personally I have no idea whether the mugger has a desperate devil may care attitude and so I wouldn't want to resist. I kind of think if the mugger wants violence, then hitting someone passive is pretty unrewarding for them. On one of the occassions I was punched but it was just one punch despite one of the muggers urging the other to stab me (he might not even have had a knife as far as I know). I do know people who have just faced down muggers and refused to pay up and walked away fine. Thinking back to the mugging situations I was in I'm trying to imagine at what point, if I were a gun person, I could have made use of the gun. When would you shoot or threaten to shoot? If a couple of people walk up to you in the street, do you whip out your gun and point it at them, then appologize if they are just asking you for directions? I get the impression that the standard international protocol for mugging is to walk up to someone, engage in some sort of preamble then demand money.

[Lone Wolf]

I think the study made sense to me because I would feel less safe with a gun in my hand.

I can virtually guarantee that if the study had confirmed my biases I'd have never bothered to check the methodology. 

It sounds like you understand everything you need to know.  If a gun makes you feel less safe, you are doing the smart thing by staying the hell away from one.  Every person and (as you said) community is different.  This is a fine thing and nicely brings us back round to the "why would you wanna live there?" question this thread has been going over.

I wouldn't say that Switzerland has an "extremely" low rate of gun violence. Switzerland has 6.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.

That statistic counts suicides, which are >90% of Switzerland's gun deaths.  While suicide is a terrible thing, this isn't really what we're addressing.  The gun homicide rate in Switzerland is lower than Germany's (although certainly higher than that of, say, Japan.)  It's almost 20 times lower than that of Mexico.

It's also worth pointing out that NYC also has the lowest crime rate of any major US city and has an extremely low per-capita crime rate:

New York is a great example of the nuance involved here.  They've always had very restrictive gun laws but experienced unbelievable crime rates during the crime wave of the 70s and during the early 80s.  It's no exaggeration to say that it was an incredibly dangerous place to be.  NYC has been greatly cleaned up since then.

Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" takes a very interesting and readable study on how this happened.  Neat stuff.

[TripleB]

I think gun ownership is perfectly fine in rural areas, where law enforcement may not be as prevalent or reliable. In a major city, like New York, there are heavily armed and expertly trained police officers everywhere. Most average New Yorkers don't need, or want, to carry guns around with them.

What makes you believe the law enforcement officers in NYC are "expertly trained"?

I have first hand knowledge and can state with no disrespect to law enforcement, that "expertly trained" is not the adjective I would use to describe 99% of police officers.

[TripleB]

I kind of think if the mugger wants violence, then hitting someone passive is pretty unrewarding for them.

You are thinking like a normal person. You are not thinking like a sociopath. If you look in the newspaper, there are random attacks on people daily, incited by nothing. Literally, a person walks down the street and gets punched in the face by someone, who then runs away. This is rewarding to a sociopath.

[Indices]

Crime has more to do with wealth disparity rather than gun ownership. There are countries like Switzerland and Finland with pretty liberal gun laws (not as liberal as ours however) and very few gun deaths.

As far as I'm concerned the NRA could ensure legal gun ownership forever in this country if they used their considerable influence to reduce wealth disparity instead of portraying gun ownership as necessary to defend oneself against impoverished psychotic criminal hordes.

[Lone Wolf]

You took the words right out of my mouth. Gun laws--or lack thereof--have very little to do with the safety of a community. Compton and Beverly Hills are both cities in California and therefore have identical gun laws, but the difference in violent crime rates between the two cities is night and day.

Absolutely right.

It's also very interesting to note that Switzerland's overall homicide rate is one of the very lowest on the entire planet.  Even I was surprised that it was literally 8th from the bottom of the list.  The Swiss are armed to the teeth but homicide is very rare there.

Mexico's Draconian gun laws leave them with a homicide rate 21 times higher than the Swiss (and 3 times higher than the United States.)  I'm convinced that ending the war on drugs would greatly lower the numbers for both countries.  I have a very negative view of drug use, so it took me many years of consideration to understand why decriminalization was the right policy.

Incidentally, check out El Salvador.  Their murder rate is 14 times that of the United States (and 100 times that of Switzerland!)  That's really frightening.  For what it's worth, gun laws are strict there, too, with a license required to even possess a firearm.

[moda0306]

Mexico's Draconian gun laws leave them with a homicide rate 21 times higher than the Swiss

No, their drugs, poverty, lack of education, lack of cohesion, and about 20 other reasons leave them with a homicide rate 21 times higher than the Swiss.

Are we going to completely ignore the numerous countries (various European countries) with extremely strict gun laws and much lower crime than the U.S., as well as the "Wild West" countries with very high crime?

There are numerous societal factors that come into play way before the legalization of weapons.  I think it's obvious that a cohesive, educated, naturally peaceful society like Switzerland would have much less crime than Mexico, regardless of gun laws.

One would improve their chances by a HUGE amount more than buying and carrying a gun by living in a safe community and making smart decisions towards avoiding crime.  I tend to agree with Gumby that attempting to use a gun when MOST situations are simply a cash grab is going to have a much higher chance of escalating a situation than saving your life and money.

Notice we're not suggesting the banning of guns, but simply looking at it from a statistical point of view. 

[MediumTex]

+1 on ending the STUPID multi-decade war on drugs.

The fact that we let people smoke tobacco and drink alcohol as we fill up the prisons with people who find pot to be a superior alternative to these two legal mind altering substances just adds hypocrisy to the stupidity.

When you put them side by side, and if I could only outlaw one, I would outlaw alcohol over pot any day.

[stone]

TripleB, I guess there is probably a lot of me trying to justify my inaction etc after the event. In reality I guess I was just shocked and confused and too dumb to do anything differently even though even with hindesight I don't know whether I would have done. My "rabbit in the headlights" confusion certainly wouldn't bode well for me as a gun fighter .
Have any of you actually used a gun to defend yourselves from robbers? Have you inadvertently pulled a gun at people who weren't robbers? I'm still struggling to get my head around how in a realistic street robbery situation you would use a gun. Do you keep them at home and just keep them for if you are burgled where the situation might be simpler?

[Coffee]

Here's what the thug down the street will say: "To all of you gun grabbers, let me put it to you, this way:

Making guns illegal will not prevent me from getting a gun.  It will prevent YOU from getting a gun.  
My gang of friends and I will then use our guns to come to your house and take your stuff.

What are you going to do to stop me?

Nothing.  

If you're lucky, you will call the police.  I will then shoot you, take your stuff and be gone before the police arrive.  If I'm feeling charitable, I will not force your wife and daughter into my van, before I leave."

[moda0306]

Coffee,

You're post was annoyingly immature, and bordering on inappropriate.  We're arguing crime statistics here, not that they should usurp the 2nd Amendment.  TripleB was saying that Cali's gun laws made it an uninhabitable wasteland and Gumby and I were showing him that 1) Texas' crime was no better and 2) carrying and using a gun in public is unlikely to improve a crime situation, most of which are just cash grabs.

You use the example of breaking into our house, but we weren't talking about home invasion.  We were talking about carrying a gun in public, which is what his issue with Cali was (other than the assault weapons ban).  Even at that, we're simply arguing "where do we want to live" based on crime statistics and gun laws.

If you need to resort to this much hyperbole and straw-man tactics then I suggest analyzing what we're saying a little more and rethinking how juvenile you want to appear when you post.

[Lone Wolf]

Mexico's Draconian gun laws leave them with a homicide rate 21 times higher than the Swiss

No, their drugs, poverty, lack of education, lack of cohesion, and about 20 other reasons leave them with a homicide rate 21 times higher than the Swiss.

I of course agree 100%.  I worded that clumsily and unintentionally implied a positive correlation between strict gun laws and high homicide rates (which I do not believe exists.)  Sorry about not taking more care there.

My intended point (which was a casualty of my wording) was that the strictness of gun laws is not well correlated with the overall homicide rate in either direction, so I think we agree.

+1 on ending the STUPID multi-decade war on drugs.

The fact that we let people smoke tobacco and drink alcohol as we fill up the prisons with people who find pot to be a superior alternative to these two legal mind altering substances just adds hypocrisy to the stupidity.

When you put them side by side, and if I could only outlaw one, I would outlaw alcohol over pot any day.

What's great about history is that you can let those who have gone before you bear the cost of figuring out what ideas don't work.

Prior generations learned the hard way that prohibition of alcohol led to nothing more than the death of many innocent people and the birth of organized crime.  (The Federal government even intentionally poisoned alcohol, killing as many as 10,000 people.)  We should consider very carefully what happened in those days when looking at our own situation.

One thing that is cool about Ron Paul when he makes this case is that he comes across as kind of a straight-laced, almost teetotaling grandpa type of guy.  He's a much more convincing advocate than the scruffy guy in a t-shirt with a suspicious-looking leaf on it who looks like he got baked 20 minutes ago.  :)

Edit: I should add that people come around on this issue slowly (and, speaking from personal experience, often with a sense of great unease and vague embarrassment.)  Getting really into reading history and trying to pattern-match to the present day was what turned me around.  Very much a gradual process.

[Coffee]

Moda: You're engaging in name calling, instead of addressing the issue.  I suspect because the possibility of this happening is too real for you to consider?

I've never understood what makes a rational person who buys home insurance, auto insurance, health insurance, retirement insurance, etc... completely go ape shit when it comes to personal security insurance?

What difference does it make, if you take away my right to carry in public vs. a home invasion?  Is a car jacking, a kidnapping or a group of thugs shooting me in a parking lot any different from them doing it in my house?  Where are you more likely to be attacked? In your house or out on the street?

[moda0306]

"Inappropriate"

"Juvenile"

"Immature"

All apply to your post, not you as a person.  It's not name-calling.  It's an assessment of the nature of your post.  I don't think I was being unfair in the least.

You are the one who used the term "gun grabbers" (though nowhere have we suggested banning guns, but simply talking about how much they aid in crime-prevention).

Who's going ape-shit?  Like I said, we're talking about crime statistics and carrying & using guns in public is MOST OFTEN going to lead to a good outcome.  This was a somewhat snappy but mature discussion until you chimed in.  Nobody's going ape-shit but you.  We're not even approaching the subject of whether it's morally correct to take peoples' guns or limit their use or lethal force.

You used the example of breaking into the home and taking our stuff, wife and daughter.  I figured I'd address home gun-ownership as your situation was absolutely ridiculous and implied that us "gun grabbers" want to deny everyone 2nd amendment rights.

[stone]

Coffee, I'm still scratching my head, you've said that you do carry a gun in public in case of robbery. Have you ever used it to protect yourself? I'm just thinking about when I was robbed and I can't think at what point I could have used a gun. Some people walk towards you and ask something- do you tell them to step back or be shot? You give them the benefit of the doubt and speak to them -they punch you- do you immediately compose yourself and whip out your gun? In a society where everyone has guns do you shoot anyone who approaches you in the street?
I got the impression when I lived in Texas as a child that guns were just a consumer thing. People kept them on the back of their pickups not because they had any realistic idea of what to do with them but just as a fashion statement. In Pakistan people similarly swagger around with guns but I was told that, just after I left, the people there were shooting each other in some sectarian feud.

[Coffee]

Here's the thing: I think a lot of your posts are:

- Immature
- Juvenile
- Inappropriate

... too.

Do I feel the need to say something about them, every time you make a post like that?
No.  

If Craig or Medium see my posts as inappropriate, they're welcome to delete them.  

As it stands: I made a post that you find repugnant?  Hey-- it's the internet.  Get over it.  

[moda0306]

Coffee,

Do you really find them that way or do you just disagree with me and let your emotions take over?  My posts contain sarcasm at times, but I'm almost always trying to move the discussion forward.  Yours wasn't repugnanant.  It just wreaked of lazy thinking and insulting assumptions and straw-man logic... the whole thing was filled with spite and devoid of any contribution to the discussion.  Feel free to call me out on the same.   Please let me know if I've crossed the line.  

To make myself clear...

I'm 100% for owning a gun in our homes, and a slightly regulated CCW policy.  I don't think regulating (aka, banning extremely offensively-natured weapons (fully automatic weapons with very long clips) is inapporpriate, but I don't necessarily think it will help much against the types of problems we'd want to prevent.  I'd probably be for an educational option in our highschools and/or communities championing responsible gun use.  

Do I think this way because I am confident these things prevent crime?  No.  I think this way because I think the government is overreaching by telling us otherwise, no matter the statistical ramifications.  

As long as I live in a safe community, though, I would not put much weight on these laws.  I have no/little will to carry a gun myself in public.  If I did, I think the next decision would not be to actually carry a gun, but to change my exposure to the public if possible (different time of day... different parking ramp... etc).  I would much more focus on the crime rate and my own exposure to it than look at a community's gun laws as a tool for my safety.

That's the equivalent of buying a home to protect yourself from inflation, IMO.  It's simply the wrong antedote for the disease.  Avoid crime by being smart in a safe community and you're 99.9% of the way there.  If you're in a situation where you're using a gun the $hit hath already hittith the fan, and you're probably in a VERY unfortunate situation, whether you were carrying it or not.  

I think we need to tell ourselves that "It's ok to want to have a freedom even if it doesn't mean a more safe or smooth-functioning society" and leave it at that.  Why try to justify it all by saying "what if my wife was raped in broad daylight in a parking lot and I didn't have a gun but could have done something to prevent it?"  Let's just admit we like our guns and don't think the government should have much of a say in whether we use them, and any personal situation we're able to prevent in one of these one-in-a-million situations is just an added bonus.

[Coffee]

Coffee, I'm still scratching my head, you've said that you do carry a gun in public in case of robbery. Have you ever used it to protect yourself? I'm just thinking about when I was robbed and I can't think at what point I could have used a gun. Some people walk towards you and ask something- do you tell them to step back or be shot? You give them the benefit of the doubt and speak to them -they punch you- do you immediately compose yourself and whip out your gun? In a society where everyone has guns do you shoot anyone who approaches you in the street?
I got the impression when I lived in Texas as a child that guns were just a consumer thing. People kept them on the back of their pickups not because they had any realistic idea of what to do with them but just as a fashion statement. In Pakistan people similarly swagger around with guns but I was told that, just after I left, the people there were shooting each other in some sectarian feud.

Stone:

The gun is just a tool... a more modern-technology version of your fists or carrying a sharp stick.  

Just like insurance, carrying a gun isn't a fix for all situations.  I've been in situations where having a gun helped and also in situations where having a gun didn't help.  It's not a panacea.  It's just a force-multiplier.

I'm sure you can come up with alternate scenarios where you could imagine having had a gun would have been a benefit or even a life saver?  

[Gumby]

Coffee, your post could easily be read as a direct threat to others. It's the kind of thing prosecutors would use in a court of law if you were ever involved in a gun-related incident.

MT would be doing you a favor by deleting it.

[Coffee]

Coffee,

Do you really find them that way or do you just disagree with me and let your emotions take over?  

Moda: You engage in name calling ... and then accuse me of letting emotions take over?  

Okay.  

Arguing about this isn't adding anything productive to the discussion.  I would suggest that you let Craig and Medium do the moderating and stop playing forum cop.  If you think my posts are immature, then don't read them.

[Coffee]

Coffee, your post could easily be read as a direct threat to others. It's the kind of thing prosecutors would use in a court of law if you were ever involved in a gun-related incident.

MT would be doing you a favor by deleting it.

Where's Clive when you need him? 

Okay, so I added quotes to the post, just in case somebody couldn't see that I was using the statement as a metaphor.

[Coffee]

TripleB, I guess there is probably a lot of me trying to justify my inaction etc after the event. In reality I guess I was just shocked and confused and too dumb to do anything differently even though even with hindesight I don't know whether I would have done. My "rabbit in the headlights" confusion certainly wouldn't bode well for me as a gun fighter .
Have any of you actually used a gun to defend yourselves from robbers? Have you inadvertently pulled a gun at people who weren't robbers? I'm still struggling to get my head around how in a realistic street robbery situation you would use a gun. Do you keep them at home and just keep them for if you are burgled where the situation might be simpler?

Stone: This is where good training comes into play.  Training will teach you how to properly identify a threat.  It will also help you overcome the "deer in the headlights" response.  I've owned guns for the past 17 years.  I've lived in a few of Robert Pelton's "World's Most Dangerous Places" and I've never inadvertently pulled a gun on somebody.

I am not a gun fighter.  I am an average Joe.

The truth is: Out on the street, there are a very limited number of situations where you would actually use the gun.  But when you find yourself in one of those situations, you'll wish you had a rifle instead of just a pistol.

[stone]

About legalizing drugs- I'm struggling with that. Would you allow bars to sell crack, heroin, PCPs etc? Would you allow it to be advertized on TV? What about product placement in films?  Heroin is afterall a brand name for diamorphine. Old adverts for Heroin claimed  that it caused "no mental clouding".

I do think it would make sense to target drug users more and drug traffickers less. People will always sell drugs if there is a market. Many drug users are much more susceptible to dissuasion. Perhaps have "reverse sting" opperations where police posed as drug sellers so as to catch customers. At the same time make drugs medically available to registered addicts as in Zurich?? That two pronged attack would deflate the illegal drug market. It is a very messy and thorny subject.

There is a lot of controversy about whether marijuana makes people prone to psychosis. I've had the misfortune of suffering from psychosis despite caffeine being my only recreational drug. I wouldn't wish psychosis on anyone. I guess my views on marijuana prohibition are the same as my views on prohibition of motorcycle riding without a helmet. I principle I guess it is down to the individual but I don't really mind it if I'm honest.

[moda0306]

I'd love to continue this debate on our respective posts, but it appears for now we're back on track, so I'll bite my tongue.

What situation would call for a rifle where whoever you intend on using it on couldn't see that you have a giant assault weapon and subdue you first before the next potential act of villainy?

[WildAboutHarry]

Your cost of living is very much up to you. The guy that runs the Early Retirement Extreme website lives in California and he lives on less than $7,000 a year.

California has a lot to offer. Just because you hear about an earthquake in Japan, do you automatically think all of Japan is a terrible place to live? Does a mudslide in one neighborhood in California make all of Cali an inhabitable wasteland?

what makes CA a "wasteland" in my mind is the constant creep,
the laws for guns, taxes, regulations etc etc, are all bad, but as others have pointed out they are bearable, with luck, money, job skills, the right attitude, and a set of CA compatible goals, they can be worked around and a good life can be had here..
but they are all creeping toward getting worse. every day i read the news the laws become a little more draconian the government a little bigger and the debt larger, with the exception of medical marijuana i cant remember the last time i heard some news that something libertarian, limited government, lower regulation, spending reducing, happened here! CA is survivable as it is. i have little hope for where it is heading...

living in CA would be like having a farm on the edge of a desert, every day the dunes get a little closer, the wind blows a little more sand into your fields and the crops get a little thinner, its not impossible to have a productive farm there, but unless the wind starts blowing in a different direction the outcome seems inevitable.

California Here I Go...

1) Open carry of UNLOADED handguns is illegal in CA as of January 1.

2) Want a Health Savings Account?  Sorry, not deductible in CA.

3) Want to build a house?  Good luck trying to navigate the morass of local, state, and federal regulations.  Count on spending months/years and lots of money for compliance, permits, etc.

4) Want an efficient state government?  Fat chance.  Let's do a last minute legislative switch to limit the use of initiative and referendum.

5) Want an efficient local government?  Let's ban circumcision.

6) Prison guard's salaries and benefits.  Enough said.

7) Roth IRA?  Take an almost 10% hit if you go this route.

Great climate, lots to do.  But you do pay for it.