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

[Lone Wolf]

living in CA is 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. 

Really good analogy.  We lived in California for a few years and got this same sense of gradual, tragic wasting.

It really is a beautiful place.  The South Bay, for example, has some of the best weather in the world (and some of the worst politics in the country.)  The beautiful landscape is the host onto which the politicos attach like leeches.  Every person just has to decide whether the high cost of living, taxation, and over-regulation are worth it for their situation.

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

You've got to be kidding me!  Did not know they did this.

[Coffee]

living in CA is 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. 

Really good analogy.  We lived in California for a few years and got this same sense of gradual, tragic wasting.

It really is a beautiful place.  The South Bay, for example, has some of the best weather in the world (and some of the worst politics in the country.)  The beautiful landscape is the host onto which the politicos attach like leeches.  Every person just has to decide whether the high cost of living, taxation, and over-regulation are worth it for their situation.

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

You've got to be kidding me!  Did not know they did this.

South Bay, San Jose?
Or South Bay (Torrance, Redondo, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, etc...) ?

[WildAboutHarry]

You've got to be kidding me!  Did not know they did this.

I wish I was.  Fortunately, interest from Treasuries is not taxable at the state level...so far.

[MediumTex]

It looks like we got things back on track and civil.

Good.

[Lone Wolf]

South Bay, San Jose?
Or South Bay (Torrance, Redondo, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, etc...) ?

Yeah, the San Jose area.

[WildAboutHarry]

I'll offer the opinion that high state taxes and oppressive gun laws do not, in and of themselves, reduce the "value" of a state to its residents.  Rather they are an indicator of a legislative tendency to fiddle, with all the intended and unintended consequences that follow.

[TripleB]

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?

1) If we are talking about current threats, then a home invasion. Suppose you come home to find your wife and daughter getting raped by 5 guys. Call 911 and wait 45 minutes for SWAT to mobilize? Or grab a rifle and go in? Could you live with yourself if you just sat back while your wife and daughter were getting raped and potentially killed? Going in is virtually suicide, but it gives your family a chance to escape.

2) If we are talking about hypothetical threats, the intent of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with personal protection from criminals, nor does it have anything to do with hunting. Consider what happened just prior to the Bill of Rights being draft. Consider the true intent. Now consider banning "assault rifles" to civilians, and limiting them to military/police.

Regardless of how you feel the world has "changed" since the 1700s, if we could re-animate our founding fathers and placed them in current times, would they:

a) feel that assault rifles are too powerful and too dangerous for common civilians to own
or
b) suitable, appropriate, and necessary for civilians to own, such that they may mount a defense against a tyrannical government if the situation arose.

I hate resorting to name calling, but if anyone thinks our founding fathers would have picked answer (a) then you are an idiot and need to re-read history books. Whether the founding fathers are correct or incorrect, and whether the world has "changed" or not, the fact is, the intent of the 2nd amendment is for citizens to be armed to both deter a tyrannical government from forming, and to fight against it if necessary, using force.

Black powder cannons existed in the 1700s. No one needed them to hunt, or for self-defense. They were truly weapons of mass destruction of the time. Lauching a 100 pound metal ball at a few hundred feet per second across long distances. Did the founding fathers include an exemption in the 2nd amendment because regular people didn't "need" them, or it would be too "dangerous" for people to own? How do you think they would have felt if someone proposed that restriction at the time?

[moda0306]

TripleB,

So since yesterday's cannon is today's nuclear bomb, and by your logic we need to be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, should we be allowed to buy nukes?

Maybe that's a bit too far, though I'd like the question addressed.  What about RPG's or land mines or other explosives?  What about an assault helecopter?

I tend to think that once we think about it for a bit, our society would be extremely dangerous if we allowed private citizens and companies to acquire weapons that our government has simply on the principal that we need to be able to mount a defense against our own government.  This would mean that any extremist with a cause in the US could get ahold of some terrible, terrible weaponry.  Could you imagine some religious nut in 1780 trying to wheel his cannon he bought into town to blow up a building?  We're simply living in a different world right now.

This isn't a flaw in the founding fathers' thinking so much as what is probably an unpredictable set of technological achievements that makes one wonder whether we should have those kind of weapons.

Maybe the answer is that we should request that our government not hold any weaponry in excess of what we reasonably can expect society to hold without it being to dangerous as a back-door way of defending the principal of the 2nd Amendment.  That, too, seems a bit extreme.  I don't have the answers, and I certainly wouldn't call someone an idiot who comes to a different set of conclusions than me.

I don't think anyone's an idiot for coming to a different conclusion on what the founding fathers might say today, because they wouldn't recognize many of todays societal functions.  What would they say about internet spying by government?  Technology has really throw a kink into how we need to think about these things.

[TripleB]

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?

This topic cannot be fully explained via a short text synopsis, but here goes:

You have a personal space around you. No one has the right to invade your personal space. The radius of that space depends on you, and your surroundings. If you live in NYC, be prepared to have a very short radius around you because people will bump into you all day. If you live in rural Kansas walking through a field, that radius might be 10 feet.

No one has the right to invade your reasonable personal space. Can you imagine walking up to a girl on the street you don't know and putting your lips one inch away from hers and talking to her? If she kneed you in the balls, would any jury convict her of battery?

Suppose you are walking down the street and someone begins to approach you.

Step 1: Make eye contact. If you look away, you are giving submissive body language and look like prey. You look weak. An aggressor will use that as a que to attack you. Additionally, you cannot see the attack coming. Ironically 99% of people in America are passive and will not make eye contact with you. Try it. When you walk around outside, try to make eye contact with everyone who walks past. 99% will intentionally avoid it, or be too into their own self (i.e. cell phone/iPod).

Step 2: Raise your hands in a defensive but non aggressive manner if your outer "radius" is breached. If someone has no reason to walk near you, and they continue towards you, raise your hands in front of your chest. It will allow you to defend yourself rather than bringing your hands up from your waistline.

Step 3: Speak. Say "Hows it going?" in a firm, but non threatening manner.

Step 4: Move laterally if they continue towards you into your personal space. Increase the tone/strength of your speech "That's close enough buddy/ I have HIV/I have the flu/Stand back"

Step 5: Introduce yelling and cursing into your commands "GET THE FUCK BACK!" Street people respond to profanity.

Step 6: Be prepared to engage with bare hand and/or weapon as the situation dictates.

A few notes:

1) Do NOT unholster your firearm unless you are ready to use it and shoot the threat. Do not draw to intimidate. Do not draw if you are not justified by law to use lethal force in self defense. If the gun comes out, you MUST shoot the person, except in an instance where they immediately turn their back and start running before you have a chance to squeeze the trigger. If you are trained and draw your firearm smoothly and efficiently, that should never happen, but I mention it because it probably won't be self defense if you shoot the guy in the back as he's running away.

2) Get training. You can't do any of this without training.

3) Practice your training. All of it. Including the yelling. Some people are timid by nature. You need to at least act aggressive for a few moments. If that's not in your nature, you need to practice more.

4) Acting aggressive will significantly reduce your need to shoot someone. Law Enforcement are trained with a use of force matrix that escalates their response depending on the threat. The very top level of the Force Matrix is "presence" because if a bad guy continues to do bad things in the "presence" of a uniformed law enforcement officer, then the situation is immediately escalated because 99% of people will stop doing bad things in the presence of cops. Use "presence" to your advantage.

5) Don't put yourself in situations where people can get the drop on you. Sit with your back to the wall in a restaurant. Do not sit near the restroom because then people have a reason to walk near you, and thus your radius is reduced. You can't yell GET THE FUCK BACK to everyone who walks near you if you are sitting next to the bathroom.

6) Criminals sense weakness and target prey. There's a bunch of other potential victims. If you have good situational awareness, make eye contact, and appear aggressive if people invade your radius, then the criminal will simply find an easier victim. Crime is a business. It's not worth their effort to take you down if they can take down someone else much easier.

7) It's always best to run away. Shooting someone in self defense can cost $100k+ in legal fees for criminal and civil law suits. The 16 year old with 25 prior arrests that held a knife to your wife that you shot? His grandmother will be on TV telling everyone how her baby would never do anything like that, and you killed him because you're racist. If you think I'm exaggerating, I could probably find no less than 100 cases of this exact thing happening in the last few years around the country.

The police have no duty to protect any individual citizen. The supreme court has ruled this to be the case. You're on your own if things get really bad.

9) Use good judgment i applying these principles. Always trust your gut. Imagine you are walking down the street at night. No one is around. A group of 3 teens fitting a criminal profile are walking towards you about 100 feet in front of you. You cross the street and continue walking. They cross the street too. You cross the street back. They follow.

Guess what? My hand is going to be on my gun, under my shirt, and I'm going to be shouting profanity at this point for them to leave me the fuck alone. I will not use threats. I will not state that I have a gun. At this point, it's clear they intend to do you harm. This leads me to point 10:

10) If they get the drop on you, you're screwed. If you're not paying attention and all the sudden 5 guys have circled around you with knives asking for your money, then you're probably not using your gun at that point. Thus, as mentioned previously, a gun is not a magical talisman. It's a tool to be used in your toolbox when appropriate. There are other tools, such as presence, followed by verbal commands, to include escalating loudness and profanity that should be used first.

[MediumTex]

Gents,

This discussion is veering away from a cooperative search for the truth and moving toward a competitive exercise that isn't bringing out the best in us.

Can we turn it down a little?

[TripleB]

What about RPG's or land mines or other explosives?  What about an assault helecopter?

Do you really feel that if people had ease of access to buying a $50M assault helicopter, that there would be mass shootings and rioting in the streets? Would someone buy a $50M copter and use it to rob a bank?

Why couldn't those same people just steal a military copter off a base? Surely that's easier than coming up with $50M cash.

I don't think anyone's an idiot for coming to a different conclusion on what the founding fathers might say today, because they wouldn't recognize many of todays societal functions.  What would they say about internet spying by government?  Technology has really throw a kink into how we need to think about these things.

What would the founding fathers say if the British wanted to look through all of postal mail before it was delivered, without a warrant, to ensure the safety of all people? Just because the technology changes, doesn't mean the principle changes. The 4th amendment is clear, and GPS tracking without a warrant, Cell Phone pinging without a warrant, reading emails without a warrant, is all 100% unconstitutional. Whether it be to prevent terrorism or child pr0n, it's still unconstitutional.

[moda0306]

TripleB,
I guess the helecopter is a weaker example of something that's likely to cause a ton of damage $ for $ in this new America, though it would be handy in defending ourselves against our gov't, so let's move to the other items that I mentioned.

A small group of well-funded terrorists could buy a nuke on e-bay in your world, or individual nut jobs could very easily get a hold of extremely dangerous, hazardous weaponry.  Dirty bombs could/would be manufactured for people to buy freely.  Your example says society NEEDS to have these things to defend ourselves against our government.  Normally we'd have a lot of difficulties before these things end up in the hands of terrorists and nutjobs, but now they're on the free market because we need to be able to defend ourselves.  Since that's the principal you're building your argument on (defense from our own gov't), it would probably make sense not only that we have these things be legal, but that society is actually active in acquiring them.  Should 5% of homes have a missile defense system to form an adequate defense against our government?  Are you honestly saying that people should be able to build, buy or market these things on the open market simply because our government has them?

[Tortoise]

6) Criminals sense weakness and target prey. There's a bunch of other potential victims. If you have good situational awareness, make eye contact, and appear aggressive if people invade your radius, then the criminal will simply find an easier victim. Crime is a business. It's not worth their effort to take you down if they can take down someone else much easier.

Great point. It relates to an aspect of the topic I believe hasn't been discussed much on this thread: the potential deterrence factor of open carry.

Why would a mugger attack a person carrying a plainly visible weapon (such as a firearm) if he could attack someone else who isn't? The person who appears to be unarmed will probably be perceived by the mugger to be an easier target.

Imagine a society in which every adult trained in the use of firearms were to carry a visible firearm on their person at all times. Would random crimes and random acts of violence against unsuspecting people be more or less prevalent in such a society? I would think less prevalent, but the answer does not seem at all obvious to me. Psychology and social factors can be subtle.

[TripleB]

6) Criminals sense weakness and target prey. There's a bunch of other potential victims. If you have good situational awareness, make eye contact, and appear aggressive if people invade your radius, then the criminal will simply find an easier victim. Crime is a business. It's not worth their effort to take you down if they can take down someone else much easier.

Great point. It relates to an aspect of the topic I believe hasn't been discussed much on this thread: the potential deterrence factor of open carry.

Why would a mugger attack a person carrying a plainly visible weapon (such as a firearm) if he could attack someone else who isn't? The person who appears to be unarmed will probably be perceived by the mugger to be an easier target.

I respectfully disagree. In today's society, open carry is a very very bad idea. Here's a few bullet points on why:

1) Liberals (no disrespect) will call the police on you every 10 minutes, even if it's legal in your state and the police will stop and question you and run you for warrants every time.

2) If you stumble into a criminal act, then you will be immediately shot. As opposed to CCW where the criminal doesn't necessarily perceive you as an immediate lethal threat.

3) Criminals may target you to steal your gun. If you have piss poor situational awareness, or even if you just let your guard down for a few seconds, 4 guys could hit you in the back of your head with a baseball bat to get your gun.

4) Criminals may target you because they think you are a cop. This ties into my advice to never carry a badge if you aren't really a cop (i.e. no Fire Fighter badge, no CCW badge, etc), and if you are a cop, and off duty, carry the badge in a separate badge wallet that you do not take out for regular purchase transactions. Criminals love to kill cops, or key up their personal cars.

That said, I do support the idea of open carry being legal. But just because something is legal doesnt mean it's a good idea. The main reason I like legal open carry is because if CCW is legal and your shirt creeps up, then you have violated no laws if open carry is legal. If open carry is forbidden, and your shirt creeps up, depending on the state, you may have committed a felony, which of course is ridiculous.

[stone]

Triple B, obviously my reactions to the situation were not appropriate because I was robbed (but perhaps could have been worse since I was not seriously hurt and did not have the hassle of court cases etc). You describe a good way to make sure you are never robbed and also almost never need risk shooting anyone. It does seem a big price to pay though to be hyper-vigilent as you describe. It seems to entail being rude to strangers. In Japan it is normal to go out into the street and give a stranger an umbrella if it is raining. I thought that that was great. Crossing the street to avoid people, swearing at them if they come close etc all seems the polar opposit to that.

I'd rather be punched and loose $10 once a decade than have to assume that other people in the street might be having dastardly intent. Personally I think a lot more money and grief is typically saved by conserving all reserves of cynicism for purveyors of financial products

[Gumby]

Triple B, obviously my reactions to the situation were not appropriate because I was robbed (but perhaps could have been worse since I was not seriously hurt and did not have the hassle of court cases etc). You describe a good way to make sure you are never robbed and also almost never need risk shooting anyone. It does seem a big price to pay though to be hyper-vigilent as you describe. It seems to entail being rude to strangers. In Japan it is normal to go out into the street and give a stranger an umbrella if it is raining. I thought that that was great. Crossing the street to avoid people, swearing at them if they come close etc all seems the polar opposit to that.

I'd rather be punched and loose $10 once a decade than have to assume that other people in the street might be having dastardly intent. Personally I think a lot more money and grief is typically saved by conserving all reserves of cynicism for purveyors of financial products

I completely agree. I couldn't even imagine having to walk around, constantly analyzing threats, and giving people the stink-eye everywhere I went. Sounds like an incredibly fearful way to live.

I mean, if you're walking down a heavily trafficked street, in a nice neighborhood, such as this one...

[align=center][/align]

...I don't think there's any reason to assume that an attacker is going to assault you in broad daylight, with dozens of witnesses watching. I think you'd have to be pretty paranoid to think that an attacker is going to mug you or kidnap you in that situation. And I don't see any reason why any of the pedestrians on that street would need a weapon.

Now, if I were walking down a dark alleyway, like this...

[align=center][/align]

...then I'd probably want to be very careful about potential threats from anyone.

TripleB, you wouldn't seriously initiate Step 1 and 2 of your assault check-list (acting aggressive, raising your hand, etc) if a seemingly kind, non-threatening stranger approached you in the first picture, would you? Say, someone wanted to ask you for directions. Would you really tell them you have HIV, push them away, and then get ready to grab your weapon?

[TripleB]

Re-read my post where I described the protocol. I went into detail on how the "Safety" radius changes depending on your location.

In NYC you obviously won't be cursing at everyone that comes within 2 feet of you. Then again, the changes of someone mugging you in broad daylight in NYC with lots of people around is very low. Especially if you have good situational awareness and are making eye contact with people who approach you, because now the criminal will likely pick an easier target from the mass around you.

If you are walking in a dark place with few people around then your safety radius gets bigger and you would challenge people coming into your zone that have no reason to be there. As I described originally, if you're walking down a dark street and see 4 teens of a criminal profile approaching, and you cross the street, and they follow, you cross again, and they follow, then they probably aren't looking to share their umbrella with you. You have to use common sense and good judgment.

As far as being vigilant all the time, that's how I choose to live my life. I enjoy seeing things around me. I don't necessarily believe everyone is out to get me, but I pay attention to my surroundings and gain value from doing so. I might notice a new flower I've never seen before. I might meet a pretty lady. I might deter a criminal who is looking for an easy, oblivious target.

As far as being mugged or attacked 1 every 10 years not being worth living vigilantly, I'd respectfully disagree. Ask someone who had their jaw broken how it's like to eat through a straw for 6 months and not be able to talk. That's the result of someone coming up and punching you in the face. A new mugging technique involves walking up to someone who isn't paying attention, asking them an inane question like what time it is, and punching them in the face, and then taking their money while they are on the ground. If you searched police reports nationally, you'd see this happens daily around the country.

To me, it's worth having good situational awareness to avoid a 1 in 10,000 chance that I'll be eating through a straw for 6 months and dealing with identity fraud because the mugger used my ID to open up numerous lines of credit, that resulted in my banks putting me in universal default and charging 30% interest on my 0% interest balance transfer deals I have out.

The cost of that happening is so great to me, that the cost of mitigating it seems reasonable. For others, you may wish to walk around looking at the sidewalk listening to an iPod and take the chance. Make the decision that seems right for you.

[moda0306]

TripleB,

Would you mind offering your insight on my previous post on nukes and various explosives being freely available on the open market (and encouraged to buy to defend us from our own government)?

[Gumby]

Re-read my post where I described the protocol. I went into detail on how the "Safety" radius changes depending on your location.

In NYC you obviously won't be cursing at everyone that comes within 2 feet of you. Then again, the changes of someone mugging you in broad daylight in NYC with lots of people around is very low.

Agreed.

Especially if you have good situational awareness and are making eye contact with people who approach you, because now the criminal will likely pick an easier target from the mass around you.

I think the chances of criminals even looking for targets to assault when lots of people are around is incredibly small. In a typical week in New York City, only 300 felony assaults are reported. And that's in a city of 8 million people!!

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/ ... cscity.pdf

I think if you broke down the 300 felony assaults each week, you'd see that most of them happened when there weren't many witnesses around. So, we're talking about a very remote chance of this happening to an average citizen.

If you are walking in a dark place with few people around then your safety radius gets bigger and you would challenge people coming into your zone that have no reason to be there. As I described originally, if you're walking down a dark street and see 4 teens of a criminal profile approaching, and you cross the street, and they follow, you cross again, and they follow, then they probably aren't looking to share their umbrella with you. You have to use common sense and good judgment.

Absolutely. But, I just think that the average resident of a large city rarely puts themselves in that kind of situation. And even if they do, your chances of this happening in a city with a low crime rate, like New York, are about 300 out of 8 Million people per week. I'll take those chances, particularly if I rarely almost never find myself on a dark and deserted street.

As far as being vigilant all the time, that's how I choose to live my life. I enjoy seeing things around me. I don't necessarily believe everyone is out to get me, but I pay attention to my surroundings and gain value from doing so. I might notice a new flower I've never seen before. I might meet a pretty lady. I might deter a criminal who is looking for an easy, oblivious target.

Or you might freak everyone else around you as you stare everyone down who comes within 5 feet of you. You certainly don't need a gun to notice a flower or a pretty lady.

As far as being mugged or attacked 1 every 10 years not being worth living vigilantly, I'd respectfully disagree. Ask someone who had their jaw broken how it's like to eat through a straw for 6 months and not be able to talk. That's the result of someone coming up and punching you in the face. A new mugging technique involves walking up to someone who isn't paying attention, asking them an inane question like what time it is, and punching them in the face, and then taking their money while they are on the ground. If you searched police reports nationally, you'd see this happens daily around the country.

I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but this happens so rarely. I've never met anyone or even heard of this happening to anyone. So, it would be unlikely that I'd ever have the chance to speak to someone who has had this happen.

To me, it's worth having good situational awareness to avoid a 1 in 10,000 chance that I'll be eating through a straw for 6 months and dealing with identity fraud because the mugger used my ID to open up numerous lines of credit, that resulted in my banks putting me in universal default and charging 30% interest on my 0% interest balance transfer deals I have out.

First of all, the chances are far less than 1 in 10,000 — unless you live in a high crime area.

Second, you don't need a gun to stop identity theft. You just phone one of the three major credit bureaus and they can put an instant freeze on your credit before the criminal has a chance to do anything. No gun necessary.

The cost of that happening is so great to me, that the cost of mitigating it seems reasonable. For others, you may wish to walk around looking at the sidewalk listening to an iPod and take the chance. Make the decision that seems right for you.

I respect your freedom to protect yourself. But, I think that same freedom also empowers criminals to do more harm to others. It's a double-edged sword.

[Coffee]

From Jeff Cooper:

White - Relaxed, unaware, and unprepared.  If attacked in this state the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy and ineptitude of your attacker.  When confronted by something nasty your reaction will probably be, "Oh my God!  This can't be happening to me."

Yellow - Relaxed alertness.  No specific threat situation.  Your mindset is that "today could be the day I may have to defend myself."  There is no specific threat but you are aware that the world is an unfriendly place and that you are prepared to do something if necessary.  You use your eyes and ears, and your carriage says "I am alert."  You don't have to be armed in this state but if you are armed you must be in yellow.  When confronted by something nasty your reaction will probably be, "I thought this might happen some day."  You can live in this state indefinitely.

Orange - Specific alert.  Something not quite right has gotten your attention and you shift your primary focus to that thing.  Something is "wrong" with a person or object.  Something may happen.  Your mindset is that "I may have to shoot that person."  Your pistol is usually holstered in this state.  You can maintain this state for several hours with ease, or a day or so with effort.

Red - Fight trigger.  This is your mental trigger.  "If that person does "x" I will shoot them."  Your pistol may, but not necessarily, be in your hand.

- End

 

[WildAboutHarry]

An interesting comparison between Texas and California in the Sacramento Bee by Dan Walters:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/21/399227 ... ehind.html

One take-home lesson: if you want to be a prison guard, head to California

[stone]

TripleB, I take your point that I was lucky to have a bruise and not a broken jaw. My difficulty is that I have very often been asked inane questions -such as what the time is- by strangers in the street. I've also myself asked such inane questions of strangers in the street.
The criminal profile concept is also quite thorny. A friend of a friend is a barrister (a type of UK lawyer) but is seemingly a classic "criminal profile" in the eyes of UK police (ie he is a youngish black man). He kind of revels in getting repeatedly stopped and searched by the police. When entering the chambers where he works (late at night wearing casual clothes) he was stopped by a policeman. He said that he worked there and the policeman replied "and I'm the Queen Mother". I guess if you fitted a "criminal profile" but rather than being a successful lawyer, you were struggling in life, people having such a perception of you could end up being disheartening.

[Coffee]

From Jeff Cooper:

White - Relaxed, unaware, and unprepared. If attacked in this state the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy and ineptitude of your attacker. When confronted by something nasty your reaction will probably be, "Oh my God! This can't be happening to me."

Yellow - Relaxed alertness. No specific threat situation. Your mindset is that "today could be the day I may have to defend myself." There is no specific threat but you are aware that the world is an unfriendly place and that you are prepared to do something if necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and your carriage says "I am alert." You don't have to be armed in this state but if you are armed you must be in yellow. When confronted by something nasty your reaction will probably be, "I thought this might happen some day." You can live in this state indefinitely.

Orange - Specific alert. Something not quite right has gotten your attention and you shift your primary focus to that thing. Something is "wrong" with a person or object. Something may happen. Your mindset is that "I may have to shoot that person." Your pistol is usually holstered in this state. You can maintain this state for several hours with ease, or a day or so with effort.

Red - Fight trigger. This is your mental trigger. "If that person does "x" I will shoot them." Your pistol may, but not necessarily, be in your hand.

- End

Jeff Cooper's books are well worth reading for anybody interested in gun ownership or self defense, and the training based on his system is the best money can buy. i wish i could afford to go to gunsite, i feel lucky to have received my handgun safety/self defense training second hand from people that studied there, i would love to get the training again first hand.

Not to veer off-topic, but: there's a lot of controversy now about Cooper's/Gun Site's approach being misguided.  Mostly coming from the Suarez/Point-Shooting crowd. 

There arguments are pretty persuasive. It's hard to argue with the Israeli's success with point shooting, too.

[stone]

About California supposedly being screwed up- I've often marveled at how California seems to more or less cary the whole world in terms of technological innovation. They must have done something right in order to do that?

[WildAboutHarry]

About California supposedly being screwed up- I've often marveled at how California seems to more or less cary the whole world in terms of technological innovation. They must have done something right in order to do that?

Of course things were done and are being done in California that are "right".  The state is full of natural beauty, engineering marvels, wonderful cities, first-rate universities, etc.  The state benefited greatly from WWII defense industries, the influx of people attracted to those industries, a large military presence, etc.  I don't know if California carries the whole world, but it obviously has and has had a major role in technology.  I do think there is a certain amount of historical inertia that is currently carrying California, though.

That said, I'm a second generation California native.  I've lived on the east coast, the mid-west (including Texas), and obviously California.  If I had my druthers (I don't, spouse overruled) I'd live in Texas.  It is the most progressive state I've lived in.  California attitudes, by comparison, seem far more provincial to me now.