Is there anything you'd be willing to fight a war for?

[JasonBlack]

(10-20-2022, 06:04 PM)David Horn Wrote: You do realize that the gun lobby, especially the faction that represents the gun industry itself, successfully lobbied to keep the collection and retention of data on gun-related adccidents, suicides and homocides illegal in most places and aggregated data illegal at the national level. That's why the CDC -- by law -- can't study the subject. So your counter argument rings massively hollow. Just as a single point: gun-related crimes in New Zealand and Switzerland are low because ownership requires a license and each weapon is registered. Resales are formal and documented, just like the transfer of a automobile. The unfit are weeded out and the others are fully tracked. You OK with that?

When did this happen (asking out of genuine curiosity, I want to look it up). In either event, Thomas Sowell addresses much of the data we do have available (often going back over 200 years), and refutes some of the more commonly cited studies. For example, people often make hasty comparisons between the US and places like the UK or Australia, when New York had over 5x the murder rate of London as early as 200 years ago (ie, before either country had modern notions of gun laws).

[David Horn]

(10-21-2022, 03:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-20-2022, 06:04 PM)David Horn Wrote: You do realize that the gun lobby, especially the faction that represents the gun industry itself, successfully lobbied to keep the collection and retention of data on gun-related adccidents, suicides and homocides illegal in most places and aggregated data illegal at the national level.  That's why the CDC -- by law -- can't study the subject.  So your counter argument rings massively hollow.  Just as a single point: gun-related crimes in New Zealand and Switzerland are low because ownership requires a license and each weapon is registered.  Resales are formal and documented, just like the transfer of a automobile.  The unfit are weeded out and the others are fully tracked.  You OK with that?

When did this happen (asking out of genuine curiosity, I want to look it up). In either event, Thomas Sowell addresses much of the data we do have available (often going back over 200 years), and refutes some of the more commonly cited studies. For example, people often make hasty comparisons between the US and places like the UK or Australia, when New York had over 5x the murder rate of London as early as 200 years ago (ie, before either country had modern notions of gun laws).

The official ban was enacted in 1996, but the de facto ban is much older.  The original problem: the inability to acquire reliable data; the cause: the gun industry, among others, making data collection a local issue (sound familiar -- it's a common method to kill things).  So even in the 1950s, data in NYC would be quite good, data in Poughkeepsie, not so much. The South and the mid/mountain West were and remain data wastelands to this day.  Several members of the old forum (I'm one of them) tried to tear into John Lott's "research" when he published his famous tome: More Guns, Less Crime, was 99% conjecture.  In short, the "data" made any conclusion equally valid., because there was so little and they were of exceedingly poor quality (anecdotes more than data).  Actually doing real data analysis is impossible.

[pbrower2a]

(10-22-2022, 08:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-21-2022, 03:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-20-2022, 06:04 PM)David Horn Wrote: You do realize that the gun lobby, especially the faction that represents the gun industry itself, successfully lobbied to keep the collection and retention of data on gun-related adccidents, suicides and homocides illegal in most places and aggregated data illegal at the national level.  That's why the CDC -- by law -- can't study the subject.  So your counter argument rings massively hollow.  Just as a single point: gun-related crimes in New Zealand and Switzerland are low because ownership requires a license and each weapon is registered.  Resales are formal and documented, just like the transfer of a automobile.  The unfit are weeded out and the others are fully tracked.  You OK with that?

When did this happen (asking out of genuine curiosity, I want to look it up). In either event, Thomas Sowell addresses much of the data we do have available (often going back over 200 years), and refutes some of the more commonly cited studies. For example, people often make hasty comparisons between the US and places like the UK or Australia, when New York had over 5x the murder rate of London as early as 200 years ago (ie, before either country had modern notions of gun laws).

The official ban was enacted in 1996, but the de facto ban is much older.  The original problem: the inability to acquire reliable data; the cause: the gun industry, among others, making data collection a local issue (sound familiar -- it's a common method to kill things).  So even in the 1950s, data in NYC would be quite good, data in Poughkeepsie, not so much. The South and the mid/mountain West were and remain data wastelands to this day.  Several members of the old forum (I'm one of them) tried to tear into John Lott's "research" when he published his famous tome: More Guns, Less Crime, was 99% conjecture.  In short, the "data" made any conclusion equally valid., because there was so little and they were of exceedingly poor quality (anecdotes more than data).  Actually doing real data analysis is impossible.

I am satisfied that criminality is a consequence of character and not of economic oppression. (Economic oppression is itself evil and deserves to be rooted out, but that is a different story). Crime relates closely to sociopathic and psychopathic personalities, and to a lesser extent to borderline personalities even more likely to become victims as victimizers (like prostitutes and people with mental illness). Sociopaths and psychopaths do crime... and they do lots of crime. Such is their character; they are predators upon fellow humans. The difference between lower-class street thugs and middle-class monsters is that middle-class monsters typically have the resources for concealing their crimes,  access to victims, richer rewards for their dishonesty, and stronger legal defenses if caught. Poor people often have their ways of dealing with oppression that do not involve crime. 

Even in the worst slums one finds more good people than bad. The most obvious connection between poverty and criminality is that people with criminal tendencies tend to not get ahead in life. Deal drugs or steal from an employer, and many opportunities for economic advancement vanish. That opportunity might "only" be a fast-food restaurant or some low-end retailer at which advancement in life typically requires finding some other employer, but such is how people often end up marking time until opportunities arise. Many such people used to go into factory work which paid much better. 

For all the incidents of a home-owner killing a burglar with his rifle or a potential victim of rape pulling a handgun out of a purse and fatally shooting a serial rapist one finds criminals turning guns against their owners, stealing guns and using them in crimes, shooting and missing the crook but killing an innocent person, or committing suicide with a firearm. The connection between firearms and human tragedy is far stronger than any putative deterrence. Episodic events are much of the documentation of cranks, much in contrast to statistical measurements that are more difficult to read (standard deviations, analysis of regression, and other such dry stuff). If you believe the personal stories then you might accept contentions of drunks that they are better drivers if inebriated; the stats show otherwise. (For people with severe anxiety one drink might make them better drivers... but one drink at the most).

[JasonBlack]

(10-22-2022, 10:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-22-2022, 08:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-21-2022, 03:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-20-2022, 06:04 PM)David Horn Wrote: You do realize that the gun lobby, especially the faction that represents the gun industry itself, successfully lobbied to keep the collection and retention of data on gun-related adccidents, suicides and homocides illegal in most places and aggregated data illegal at the national level.  That's why the CDC -- by law -- can't study the subject.  So your counter argument rings massively hollow.  Just as a single point: gun-related crimes in New Zealand and Switzerland are low because ownership requires a license and each weapon is registered.  Resales are formal and documented, just like the transfer of a automobile.  The unfit are weeded out and the others are fully tracked.  You OK with that?

When did this happen (asking out of genuine curiosity, I want to look it up). In either event, Thomas Sowell addresses much of the data we do have available (often going back over 200 years), and refutes some of the more commonly cited studies. For example, people often make hasty comparisons between the US and places like the UK or Australia, when New York had over 5x the murder rate of London as early as 200 years ago (ie, before either country had modern notions of gun laws).

The official ban was enacted in 1996, but the de facto ban is much older.  The original problem: the inability to acquire reliable data; the cause: the gun industry, among others, making data collection a local issue (sound familiar -- it's a common method to kill things).  So even in the 1950s, data in NYC would be quite good, data in Poughkeepsie, not so much. The South and the mid/mountain West were and remain data wastelands to this day.  Several members of the old forum (I'm one of them) tried to tear into John Lott's "research" when he published his famous tome: More Guns, Less Crime, was 99% conjecture.  In short, the "data" made any conclusion equally valid., because there was so little and they were of exceedingly poor quality (anecdotes more than data).  Actually doing real data analysis is impossible.

I am satisfied that criminality is a consequence of character and not of economic oppression. (Economic oppression is itself evil and deserves to be rooted out, but that is a different story). Crime relates closely to sociopathic and psychopathic personalities, and to a lesser extent to borderline personalities even more likely to become victims as victimizers (like prostitutes and people with mental illness). Sociopaths and psychopaths do crime... and they do lots of crime. Such is their character; they are predators upon fellow humans. The difference between lower-class street thugs and middle-class monsters is that middle-class monsters typically have the resources for concealing their crimes,  access to victims, richer rewards for their dishonesty, and stronger legal defenses if caught. Poor people often have their ways of dealing with oppression that do not involve crime. 

Even in the worst slums one finds more good people than bad. The most obvious connection between poverty and criminality is that people with criminal tendencies tend to not get ahead in life. Deal drugs or steal from an employer, and many opportunities for economic advancement vanish. That opportunity might "only" be a fast-food restaurant or some low-end retailer at which advancement in life typically requires finding some other employer, but such is how people often end up marking time until opportunities arise. Many such people used to go into factory work which paid much better. 

For all the incidents of a home-owner killing a burglar with his rifle or a potential victim of rape pulling a handgun out of a purse and fatally shooting a serial rapist one finds criminals turning guns against their owners, stealing guns and using them in crimes, shooting and missing the crook but killing an innocent person, or committing suicide with a firearm. The connection between firearms and human tragedy is far stronger than any putative deterrence. Episodic events are much of the documentation of cranks, much in contrast to statistical measurements that are more difficult to read (standard deviations, analysis of regression, and other such dry stuff). If you believe the personal stories then you might accept contentions of drunks that they are better drivers if inebriated; the stats show otherwise. (For people with severe anxiety one drink might make them better drivers... but one drink at the most).

Largely agreed. Two things I often have to explain to both left and right wingers are
1) The causality is often backwards from what they think. Most poor people are not violent criminals, but most violent criminals are poor, because they lack the impulse control, pro-social ethics and empathetic abilities to socialize and make a living in the modern era.
2) Both the very poor and very rich are more varied in characteristics than the middle class. In the case of the first, they include such groupings as
- immigrants, ranging from the best and the worst of humanity, often on one of the extremes
- military vets with PTSD
- pimps and drug dealers
- gangsters, mindless goons
- college students
- widows
- start up entrepreneurs
- artists

Meanwhile, people in the middle class tend to be a little more conventional in both their views and their cognitive abilities, so people tend to assume this level of similarity among other income brackets.

[pbrower2a]

(10-23-2022, 12:49 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-22-2022, 10:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-22-2022, 08:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-21-2022, 03:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-20-2022, 06:04 PM)David Horn Wrote: You do realize that the gun lobby, especially the faction that represents the gun industry itself, successfully lobbied to keep the collection and retention of data on gun-related adccidents, suicides and homocides illegal in most places and aggregated data illegal at the national level.  That's why the CDC -- by law -- can't study the subject.  So your counter argument rings massively hollow.  Just as a single point: gun-related crimes in New Zealand and Switzerland are low because ownership requires a license and each weapon is registered.  Resales are formal and documented, just like the transfer of a automobile.  The unfit are weeded out and the others are fully tracked.  You OK with that?

When did this happen (asking out of genuine curiosity, I want to look it up). In either event, Thomas Sowell addresses much of the data we do have available (often going back over 200 years), and refutes some of the more commonly cited studies. For example, people often make hasty comparisons between the US and places like the UK or Australia, when New York had over 5x the murder rate of London as early as 200 years ago (ie, before either country had modern notions of gun laws).

The official ban was enacted in 1996, but the de facto ban is much older.  The original problem: the inability to acquire reliable data; the cause: the gun industry, among others, making data collection a local issue (sound familiar -- it's a common method to kill things).  So even in the 1950s, data in NYC would be quite good, data in Poughkeepsie, not so much. The South and the mid/mountain West were and remain data wastelands to this day.  Several members of the old forum (I'm one of them) tried to tear into John Lott's "research" when he published his famous tome: More Guns, Less Crime, was 99% conjecture.  In short, the "data" made any conclusion equally valid., because there was so little and they were of exceedingly poor quality (anecdotes more than data).  Actually doing real data analysis is impossible.

I am satisfied that criminality is a consequence of character and not of economic oppression. (Economic oppression is itself evil and deserves to be rooted out, but that is a different story). Crime relates closely to sociopathic and psychopathic personalities, and to a lesser extent to borderline personalities even more likely to become victims as victimizers (like prostitutes and people with mental illness). Sociopaths and psychopaths do crime... and they do lots of crime. Such is their character; they are predators upon fellow humans. The difference between lower-class street thugs and middle-class monsters is that middle-class monsters typically have the resources for concealing their crimes,  access to victims, richer rewards for their dishonesty, and stronger legal defenses if caught. Poor people often have their ways of dealing with oppression that do not involve crime. 

Even in the worst slums one finds more good people than bad. The most obvious connection between poverty and criminality is that people with criminal tendencies tend to not get ahead in life. Deal drugs or steal from an employer, and many opportunities for economic advancement vanish. That opportunity might "only" be a fast-food restaurant or some low-end retailer at which advancement in life typically requires finding some other employer, but such is how people often end up marking time until opportunities arise. Many such people used to go into factory work which paid much better. 

For all the incidents of a home-owner killing a burglar with his rifle or a potential victim of rape pulling a handgun out of a purse and fatally shooting a serial rapist one finds criminals turning guns against their owners, stealing guns and using them in crimes, shooting and missing the crook but killing an innocent person, or committing suicide with a firearm. The connection between firearms and human tragedy is far stronger than any putative deterrence. Episodic events are much of the documentation of cranks, much in contrast to statistical measurements that are more difficult to read (standard deviations, analysis of regression, and other such dry stuff). If you believe the personal stories then you might accept contentions of drunks that they are better drivers if inebriated; the stats show otherwise. (For people with severe anxiety one drink might make them better drivers... but one drink at the most).

Largely agreed. Two things I often have to explain to both left and right wingers are

1) The causality is often backwards from what they think. Most poor people are not violent criminals, but most violent criminals are poor, because they lack the impulse control, pro-social ethics and empathetic abilities to socialize and make a living in the modern era.

Criminality is one way, once one is exposed, to lose middle-class respectability once and for all. Criminality is often personal ruin especially if it puts one in the grasp of the criminal-justice system. People released from prison are expected to do low-paying. menial jobs as proof of acceptability at a certain level. 

Learning disabilities and poor impulse control can make one poor if one isn't already; these will keep one poor. They are not good for getting and holding jobs. They might be tolerable in a criminal milieu in which bourgeois virtues are objects of ridicule. Landscaping work may be physically-demanding drudgery, but it is one way to earn a sort-of-OK living. Crooks see people who make honest livings as schmucks. 

Poverty itself is often a result of marginal talent, lack of mobility and imagination, unwillingness to abandon a neighborhood and community, poor choices in life, and simple bad luck. Poor choices can be a failure to choose an appropriate course in life. So you think you can be the New Michael Jackson or the New Michael Jordan, but you fall short -- way short. You end up as unskilled labor, and unskilled labor usually pays badly over time: last hired and first fired. Maybe one would be better off committing oneself to being a schoolteacher. Middle-class kids are more likely to get more and better (if often contradicting) advice.      

Quote:2) Both the very poor and very rich are more varied in characteristics than the middle class. In the case of the first, they include such groupings as
- immigrants, ranging from the best and the worst of humanity, often on one of the extremes
- military vets with PTSD
- pimps and drug dealers
- gangsters, mindless goons
- college students
- widows
- start up entrepreneurs
- artists

Meanwhile, people in the middle class tend to be a little more conventional in both their views and their cognitive abilities, so people tend to assume this level of similarity among other income brackets.

The middle class is the realm of blandness. That is fine for an IRS agent, a high-school English teacher, a certified public accountant, someone who anchors Channel 14 News in Lansing, Michigan or who sells cars for the Pontiac-Oldsmobile-SAAB dealership. The middle class includes people who have changed their names from "Kowalski" to "Smithson" (translation) or "Donatelli" to "Donaldson". 

The rich can get away with the assertion of self (but so can genuinely creative people who are expected to show eccentricity.  But of the poor...

1. Start-up entrepreneurs, often immigrants, are likely to get ahead in life if at all successful. 

2. Immigrants are often consigned to low-paying jobs until they master English. Once they succeed at that (if they are not illegal immigrants), whatever virtues they have pay off if the opportunity arises. These people often encourage their kids to dedicate themselves to schooling and to getting trades. 

3. Military vets with PTSD... they are not the only people with PTSD. It hurts . Really, this could be extended into the mentally and physically disabled who might end up in the welfare system.

4. College students are often broke, but once one gets a job in which a college degree is an advantage, one will not remain poor for long. 

5. Widows and divorcees are a mixed bag depending on where they were before bereavement or divorce.  

6. Artists polarize in results. The best artistic career is commercial art for advertising if one is willing to subordinate ars gratia artis for something directed to money-making, like selling people on cigarettes or hard liquor or going deep in debt for some questionable luxury. 

7. Pimps and pushers, and prostitutes? Losers!

8. Gangsters fit patterns of the destitute: superstitious, unlearned, and addled on intense, ephemeral pleasures even if they are economically successful. Many are mindless goons; who better to do a contract killing or pull off a robbery? They don't go legit, and they always have to watch their backs.

[JasonBlack]

(10-20-2022, 11:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Valid pretext for owning a gun:

1. Bears nearby.
2. Cougars or jaguars nearby.
3. You are in the sheep business. Dogs are as lethal as wolves to sheep, and the law is on the side of sheep-raising interests against wayward dogs.
4. You hunt for sport (but I would suggest that the police let you store your deer rifle at the station).
5. Neighbors keep dangerous animals.
6. Neighbors are drug traffickers.
Otherwise... you are better off with a dog.

Only a fool would confront a burglar. The best advise for dealing with a burglar is to get out. Treat a burglary like a fire: just get out of the house. And, yes, get your beloved dog out. Got a gun? Get it out of the house, too.

If you have a charged cellphone you have a silent alarm to the police. You can text to the police, and nobody will hear that.

Using as an example with an unlikely address:

"Burglary at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Intruder in the Lincoln bedroom".

No. If a burglar breaks into my house, I'm putting a bullet in his head and turning him into dog food.

[Eric the Green]

(10-24-2022, 04:25 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-20-2022, 11:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Valid pretext for owning a gun:

1. Bears nearby.
2. Cougars or jaguars nearby.
3. You are in the sheep business.   Dogs are as lethal as wolves to sheep, and the law is on the side of sheep-raising interests against wayward dogs.  
4. You hunt for sport (but I would suggest that the police let you store your deer rifle at the station).
5. Neighbors keep dangerous animals.
6. Neighbors are drug traffickers.
Otherwise... you are better off with a dog.

Only a fool would confront a burglar. The best advise for dealing with a burglar is to get out. Treat a burglary like a fire:  just get out of the house. And, yes, get your beloved dog out. Got a gun? Get it out of the house, too.

If you have a charged cellphone you have a silent alarm to the police. You can text to the police, and nobody will hear that.

Using as an example with an unlikely address:

"Burglary at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Intruder in the Lincoln bedroom".

No. If a burglar breaks into my house, I'm putting a bullet in his head and turning him into dog food.

Burglary is not a capital crime, and it is illegal for you to set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.

[pbrower2a]

Burglars are dangerous people as a group. Many are rapists. Breaking into property is not the objective. The objects of burglary at best larceny or vandalism (the least dangerous objectives). Burglars at their worst are rapists and child-molesters. Contempt for the boundaries of ordinary people is a sociopathic quality.

I have known one fellow, a completely untrustworthy person, who broke into a house to get women's clothing. I would not be surprised if this creep (a relative) is eventually convicted for rape. He's now in his mid-fifties (he is a relative, and you don't choose them), not that that will stop him if he gets the urge.

Burglars are unpredictable. California had a three-strikes law, and by sentencing people to extremely long terms for burglaries, the state got an unpredicted result of rapes falling off. Don't confront; just get out.

[JasonBlack]

(10-24-2022, 07:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Burglary is not a capital crime, and it is illegal for you to set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.

You clearly aren't from The South. Most of us have Castle Doctrine, and in the places that don't, you'd be hard press to find a law enforcement or court system willing to charge you.

https://www.deatonlaw.net/south-carolina...e%20nation

So....yes, if you are obviously breaking into and attacking my property, you bet your ass I am judge, jury and executioner. Would I do it in practice? Probably (especially if he didn't really look dangerous), but if there was any risk of life....hell yeah I would shoot him. If nothing else I'd get him in the leg or something. There is a reason why the United States has way less burglaries than the UK, in spite of having otherwise much higher crime. Deterrence works. It's the same reason we've been able to prevent nuclear war for so long (let's hope it stays that way. a lot of hothead politicians really need to chill right about now because they send all their sons, nephews and grandsons off to die).

Edit: for clarification, I would have to know they were trespassing deliberately and it was in my place of residence. For example, it's common for children to accidentally wonder onto someone's property while wondering through the woods. Likewise, I would definitely remove a hobo from my land if he were squatting in some shed in the back, but that's a completely different class of crime. Breaking into an actual residence is an act of overt aggression. Trying to sleep somewhere or accidentally wandering in are not.

[JasonBlack]

(10-24-2022, 10:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Burglars are dangerous people as a group. Many are rapists. Breaking into property is not the objective. The objects of burglary at best larceny or vandalism (the least dangerous objectives). Burglars at their worst are rapists and child-molesters. Contempt for the boundaries of ordinary people  is a sociopathic quality.  

I have known one fellow, a completely untrustworthy person, who broke into a house to get women's clothing. I would not be surprised if this creep (a relative) is eventually convicted for rape. He's now in his mid-fifties (he is a relative, and you don't choose them), not that that will stop him if he gets the urge.

Burglars are unpredictable. California had a three-strikes law, and by sentencing people to extremely long terms for burglaries, the state got an unpredicted result of rapes falling off. Don't confront; just get out.

Yes, they are, and when there are less severe consequences, they do it more. For example, 5 out of 6 of the top countries in the world for burglary rates are Angosphere and Nordic countries with some of the weakest self-defense laws
number of burglaries per 100,000 people
Australia: 674
UK: 715
Sweden: 781
Denmark: 954
New Zealand: 1353


USA: 376
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1238...e-country/


Keep in mind: all of these countries on balance have much, much lower overall crime than the United States, yet all have substantially higher rates of burglary cuz, you guessed it, the consequences aren't severe enough.

[pbrower2a]

Deterrence works for burglaries.

Powerful, strong, agile, swift predators with sharp claws and teeth and the muscles to make them are the sorts of creatures to be found in predator enclosures in zoos. Dogs can make a human habitation another equivalent of a predator enclosure. At night, a dog has all the predatory advantages even if small. Small dogs have big teeth and claws. Just think of what a Rottweiler has awaiting a burglar.

You do not want any dog as an enemy. Yorkshire tigers -- excuse me, terriers -- have put people in the hospital.

[Eric the Green]

(10-24-2022, 11:07 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-24-2022, 10:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Burglars are dangerous people as a group. Many are rapists. Breaking into property is not the objective. The objects of burglary at best larceny or vandalism (the least dangerous objectives). Burglars at their worst are rapists and child-molesters. Contempt for the boundaries of ordinary people  is a sociopathic quality.  

I have known one fellow, a completely untrustworthy person, who broke into a house to get women's clothing. I would not be surprised if this creep (a relative) is eventually convicted for rape. He's now in his mid-fifties (he is a relative, and you don't choose them), not that that will stop him if he gets the urge.

Burglars are unpredictable. California had a three-strikes law, and by sentencing people to extremely long terms for burglaries, the state got an unpredicted result of rapes falling off. Don't confront; just get out.

Yes, they are, and when there are less severe consequences, they do it more. For example, 5 out of 6 of the top countries in the world for burglary rates are Angosphere and Nordic countries with some of the weakest self-defense laws
number of burglaries per 100,000 people
Australia: 674
UK: 715
Sweden: 781
Denmark: 954
New Zealand: 1353


USA: 376
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1238...e-country/


Keep in mind: all of these countries on balance have much, much lower overall crime than the United States, yet all have substantially higher rates of burglary cuz, you guessed it, the consequences aren't severe enough.

Yes, and burglary is not a very serious crime compared to others.

You can't take it with you.

[Eric the Green]

(10-24-2022, 10:55 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-24-2022, 07:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Burglary is not a capital crime, and it is illegal for you to set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.

You clearly aren't from The South. Most of us have Castle Doctrine, and in the places that don't, you'd be hard press to find a law enforcement or court system willing to charge you.

https://www.deatonlaw.net/south-carolina...e%20nation

So....yes, if you are obviously breaking into and attacking my property, you bet your ass I am judge, jury and executioner. Would I do it in practice? Probably (especially if he didn't really look dangerous), but if there was any risk of life....hell yeah I would shoot him. If nothing else I'd get him in the leg or something. There is a reason why the United States has way less burglaries than the UK, in spite of having otherwise much higher crime. Deterrence works. It's the same reason we've been able to prevent nuclear war for so long (let's hope it stays that way. a lot of hothead politicians really need to chill right about now because they send all their sons, nephews and grandsons off to die).

Edit: for clarification, I would have to know they were trespassing deliberately and it was in my place of residence. For example, it's common for children to accidentally wonder onto someone's property while wondering through the woods. Likewise, I would definitely remove a hobo from my land if he were squatting in some shed in the back, but that's a completely different class of crime. Breaking into an actual residence is an act of overt aggression. Trying to sleep somewhere or accidentally wandering in are not.

The South is perhaps (and very likely) the worst place by any measure in the developed world. It has the worst stats on all measures of any region in the USA, and the USA itself has the worst stats on all measures of any developed country. Many places in the South are as bad as the worst third world countries. No, I am not from the South, and I would not even visit there. I'd be taking my life in my hands. No thanks Dixie.

[JasonBlack]

(10-25-2022, 04:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The South is perhaps (and very likely) the worst place by any measure in the developed world. It has the worst stats on all measures of any region in the USA, and the USA itself has the worst stats on all measures of any developed country. Many places in the South are as bad as the worst third world countries. No, I am not from the South, and I would not even visit there. I'd be taking my life in my hands. No thanks Dixie.

Every measure except inbound moves apparently. There are WAY more transplants from up north than the reverse. Turns out people like good manners, delicious food and beautiful scenery more than identity politics and the puzzling combination of moral crusades and rampant degeneracy. I'll give Cali some credit though, some of your scenery is breathtaking too once you get out of the urban centers. In my experience, rural Californians are several cuts above the rest, and they're more than welcome in my state as long as they leave the baggage of broken city planning and identitarian madness behind where it belongs. Urban elite Californians though? ....eww, I hope they stay where they are.

Ordinarily, I would avoid such conversations, as taking pride in something you have no control over seems useless to me, but in this case, I make a deliberate decision to move after studying the cultures and laws of various states, and I think I made the right decision.

[pbrower2a]

(10-27-2022, 10:09 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-25-2022, 04:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The South is perhaps (and very likely) the worst place by any measure in the developed world. It has the worst stats on all measures of any region in the USA, and the USA itself has the worst stats on all measures of any developed country. Many places in the South are as bad as the worst third world countries. No, I am not from the South, and I would not even visit there. I'd be taking my life in my hands. No thanks Dixie.

Every measure except inbound moves apparently. There are WAY more transplants from up north than the reverse. Turns out people like good manners, delicious food and beautiful scenery more than identity politics and the puzzling combination of moral crusades and rampant degeneracy. I'll give Cali some credit though, some of your scenery is breathtaking too once you get out of the urban centers. In my experience, rural Californians are several cuts above the rest, and they're more than welcome in my state as long as they leave the baggage of broken city planning and identitarian madness behind where it belongs. Urban elite Californians though? ....eww, I hope they stay where they are.

Ordinarily, I would avoid such conversations, as taking pride in something you have no control over seems useless to me, but in this case, I make a deliberate decision to move after studying the cultures and laws of various states, and I think I made the right decision.

Lower cost of living and less-severe winters. If one does not have to make a living, then it does not matter that the best job is in a truck stop.  Housing is cheap, and so are food prices. Taxes are heavily on retail sales, so if you are buying stuff from the rent-to-own rip-off emporium because you are short of money because you have a job at the truck stop, then state sales taxes as high as 9% in Tennessee burn you badly on the schlock that you buy as furniture or shoddy electronics. Not having to shovel snow is an attraction of the South. 

The South has the best regional cuisine in America -- that of New Orleans. Such reflects largely the French and Spanish heritage of old New Orleans. This said, the Deep South and Mountain South attracted few voluntary immigrants. (Texas is suspect as a Southern state as it straddles regions of America -- Mexican Border, Deep South, and Midwest).  The industrial jobs were Up North in part because the South was slow to accept industrialization because the white racist agrarian Establishment  opposed commerce and industry which might have put pressure on wages of farm laborers. Note well: opposition to commerce and industry is not reliably Left. The Junker class of those parts of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse border before 1945 was also hostile to industrialization and to (largely Jewish) commerce. 

... Texas is now getting plenty of liberal-leaning Californians, which reflects Texas drifting D in Presidential elections. Statewide elections are getting closer. Add to this that Texas minorities are not hostile to formal education, and formal education is to the extent of its strength hostile to the superstitious, authoritarian, economically-elitist Hard Right.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2022, 10:09 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(10-25-2022, 04:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The South is perhaps (and very likely) the worst place by any measure in the developed world. It has the worst stats on all measures of any region in the USA, and the USA itself has the worst stats on all measures of any developed country. Many places in the South are as bad as the worst third world countries. No, I am not from the South, and I would not even visit there. I'd be taking my life in my hands. No thanks Dixie.

Every measure except inbound moves apparently. There are WAY more transplants from up north than the reverse. Turns out people like good manners, delicious food and beautiful scenery more than identity politics and the puzzling combination of moral crusades and rampant degeneracy. I'll give Cali some credit though, some of your scenery is breathtaking too once you get out of the urban centers. In my experience, rural Californians are several cuts above the rest, and they're more than welcome in my state as long as they leave the baggage of broken city planning and identitarian madness behind where it belongs. Urban elite Californians though? ....eww, I hope they stay where they are.

Ordinarily, I would avoid such conversations, as taking pride in something you have no control over seems useless to me, but in this case, I make a deliberate decision to move after studying the cultures and laws of various states, and I think I made the right decision.

In all stats, the South is degenerate.

I'll take freer lifestyles and cultural richness over racism and religious right fanaticism any day.

I think some northern cities like San Francisco have world-famous cuisine. Northern cities tend to have modern transit too, making them easy to get to for many living nearby.

I would take northern coasts and mountain lakes any day over southern scenery. I don't agree there with you either. The South is swampy, and full of poor, uncared-for cities and people, and that is not good scenery. Tobacco farms, factory farms, polluted rivers and cotton fields are not scenic to me. By contrast, northern urban centers have more parks, scenic areas, and other accessible natural places than any place in the South, or any place in the world. The South has no conservation or ecological ethic, and it thinks Nature is just something to subdue and use to extract fossil fuels from. Cancer alleys in places like Louisiana are common. Urban "elite" Californians create spaces that refresh the soul and the body; southerners who actually keep our real elites in power with their votes do not.

Right now, some northern areas are losing population because either their old industrial base has been decimated by national neoliberal Reaganomics policies voted in by southerners for 40 plus years, or because they are such desirable places that it costs too much to live there for many people these days. Also, it gets cold up north, and in de-industrialized times there is not as much money to keep people in cold places. Also, admittedly some greedy businessmen prefer to move to southern red states for the lower taxes and regulations, which backfires on them eventually because socially-responsible governments actually enhance infrastructure, education, prosperity and opportunity while neoliberal Reaganomics austerity does not. BUT, global warming is proceeding, and this may reverse the moves, as it gets too hot there and too subject to floods, storms and fires down south.

And this is not to mention the higher level of violent crime, especially gun crime, because of their outrageous, deadly gun policies. The South is totally unsafe due to this factor alone.

[pbrower2a]

Eric, I must remind you that Appalachia and the Ozarks have some beautiful scenery. Although neither I-44 in the Missouri Ozarks nor the West Virginia Turnpike can match the beauty of I-70 between Denver and Colorado Springs nor I-84 through the Columbia River Gorge, those highways are much more attractive than I-80 from Lincoln, Nebraska to Cleveland. One of my favorite long-distance drives is US 69 from McAlester, Oklahoma leading into I-44 to St. Louis, or back. Great Smoky Mountains National Park is magnificent. If I must drive to Florida from Michigan then I am taking that route.

Educational standards are generally poor, which is horrid preparation for any Good Life. The "honor" culture fosters violent assaults over trivial affronts for which the appropriate response to a d@mnyankee like me is to back off. If someone calls me a sissy for not fighting against such an affront, I simply want to avoid the situation. I prefer to avoid the broken fists or jaws that come from fist-fights that prove nothing.

(It may be ironic; I long thought myself a coward for not standing up for myself until finding that the Armed Services tell soldiers that backing off and getting out of the scene is the right, proper, and honorable way out of a situation that might get one into a military hospital). I have run from several fights, and the most serious effect of my "cowardice" has been running out of breath.

Neoliberalism allowed Big Business to abandon manufacturing in favor of importing. No nation gets rich by importing luxuries; the expensive English woolens that Indians wore in deference to their British overlords caused poverty for India, Gandhi got it right by suggesting that India revert to more traditional, locally-produced clothing. The Americans who I thought got hurt least by neoliberalism other than the rich were the Old Order Amish, who did not spend heavily upon electronic goodies and on cars. Need we go that far? I hope not!

[JasonBlack]

The worst by every conceivable metric....except only 1 of the top 10 states for unemployment is in the South, and even then, it is at the bottom of that list. West Virginia scores the lowest on this metric, but still beats out NY, D.C. and IL, ties with CT and is only 0.1% behind California, which the rest of the south stays comfortably ahead of.

How about the next 10? Only two: Kentucky and North Carolina (three if we count Texas). The South certainly has its problems. For example, I agree a bit more of that "honor culture" of the upland south and hierarchical authoritarianism in the lowland south need to die, but the difference between the bad apples in the South vs the bad apples up north is...you can typically avoid the former, because they don't actively seek out targets quite so readily. Meanwhile, the identitarian crowd up north proactively dox people, try to get them banned from events, micromanage acceptable work behavior, etc.


source: BLS
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

[David Horn]

(10-28-2022, 04:47 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The worst by every conceivable metric....except only 1 of the top 10 states for unemployment is in the South, and even then, it is at the bottom of that list. West Virginia scores the lowest on this metric, but still beats out NY, D.C. and IL, ties with CT and is only 0.1% behind California, which the rest of the south stays comfortably ahead of.

How about the next 10? Only two: Kentucky and North Carolina (three if we count Texas). The South certainly has its problems. For example, I agree a bit more of that "honor culture" of the upland south and hierarchical authoritarianism in the lowland south need to die, but the difference between the bad apples in the South vs the bad apples up north is...you can typically avoid the former, because they don't actively seek out targets quite so readily. Meanwhile, the identitarian crowd up north proactively dox people, try to get them banned from events, micromanage acceptable work behavior, etc.

source: BLS
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Working in the South is do-or-die.  There's not much in the way of social safety net, so failutre to work offers two options: mooching and crime.  I fail to see that as a net plus.

[JasonBlack]

(10-31-2022, 01:29 PM)David Horn Wrote: Working in the South is do-or-die.  There's not much in the way of social safety net, so failutre to work offers two options: mooching and crime.  I fail to see that as a net plus.

Working is supposed to be "do-or-die" (at least, not being unemployed for like a year plus). Yes, wages are lower, but cost of living is also much, much lower than in most of the rest of the country. Me 10 years ago would have extended a bit more benefit of the doubt. I have been unemployed a few times, and it's a horrible place to be, but more and more I see the younger millennials and Gen Z openly....bragging about quitting work. Doing it as a social/moral statement and not applying for more jobs when possible. We don't tolerate those people in the South. 

I'm not even particularly extreme on this issue, but I'm sorry to say, this is a clear instance of "give'em an inch, they'll take a mile".