^^ I know that Obama is for gun control, but just how much does he want to control it? Has he proposed concrete ideas?

From On the Issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bara...un_Control.htm

Gun sales are up also because of the economy. People are concerned that if everything falls apart and people lose everything, chaos will ensue and homes/people will be in danger. That's why my bf bought his shotgun.

I do have to say that I don't think gun control is going to be top-of-mind for Obama once he's in office. He's going to be totally preoccupied with other crap.

I happen to believe that certain controls should be put in place. For example, there's no good reason why Joe Schmo should be able to buy a 50 caliber gun capable of doing things like blowing up cars from a great distance. But right now, he can.

My handgun was stolen years ago and is probably being used in felony crimes. I'd like to have a gun with a concealed weapon license. I'm not a Democrat. ;)

If I lived in an area where I felt like I needed to go thru all of that to live, then perhaps I need to move.

Coincidentally, I did just that.

But...furthermore, I have lived in bad areas a good part of my life but never felt the need to have a sidearm.

Doesn't matter where I live. I don't trust anyone and I don't trust the police.

Neither do I...and thru 2 break in's and a neighbor being stabbed to death, almost 40 years leter, I still don't have that much fear in me to arm myself...but for you, good luck with that.

In keeping with this thread, I should also mention that the evils I most fear are white hate groups and serial killers. It probably sounds ridiculous, but it's the truth.

Sure, but doesn't California have more than any of the southern states? It's still west coast.

Oregon and Idaho are more than 90% White and Washington is about 88% White. I wouldn't really expect a whole lot of racial incidents in a community so dominantly of one race or ethnicity. (ETA:I think there has to be a perception of scarcity or competition before hate groups get crazy; "they're taking over" or "we're losing what's ours" kind of thinking. I do think you have some groups moving in to Idaho in particular from elsewhere, but I don't think Idaho is a racial pressure cooker in itself.)

What happens when you scale by population?

I suspect hate group numbers are related to population size as well. Even if you just look at southern states that seems to be the case. ETA: except maybe for South Carolina.

But I wasn't finding a whole lot of merit in the look-these-practically-lily-white-states-don't-have-racial-violence or hate groups argument that seemed to be being made.

ETA: adding the hate group link again so I can find it easily:http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
The Dakotas are practically hate group free. It must be because they are so progressive and tolerant.

You didn't even address my points about rural areas, the easy access to fire arms, and the tax issues that have drawn these groups to the area. They may not do things locally, but they have headquartered here. I even admitted the Aryan Nation had a huge stronghold less than 100 miles from where I live and creepily enough I met people who were involved in it because Idaho is totally inbred and small (it is more like 2 or 3 degrees of separation here, especially with the University).

Maybe the Dakotas don't have hate groups because of geography, tax laws, or something else. Sure they have the Black Hills but the wilderness out here with less people makes hiding out pretty easy. You're a lot more obvious shooting buffalo on the Plains than tracking elk in the Bitterroots. We're very much "mind your business" out in the boonies and luckily we don't condone it here, nor do most of the people of Montana (Peppy can speak for Washington, but she's on the Westside). The groups here were mostly run out by the government for tax and other issues, and moved back east (if I remember right above the Mason Dixon line) where they could operate the way they wanted to.

Also California (according to the SPLC) has "hate groups" against white Christians (the usual hate mongers when people think of hate groups), including the Nation of Islam, the Jewish Defense League, Voz de Aztlan. KSigRC is right that it has to do with population. I don't know why there are more groups in certain Southern states (I have hypotheses), but I do know why groups came to where I live and work, and why they aren't here anymore.

Ignoring that population is likely the reason for California's high numbers, especially given the breakdown in the southeast, while relying on the "lily white" argument seems like you're cherry picking, that's all I'm saying.

Washington is actually 84% white as of 2006 census estimates (76% white of non-hispanic origin). The western side of the state (Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma corridor) is far more diverse and WAY more populated than the eastern side, yet the eastern side accounts for 6 of the 18 hate groups identified by city. The whiter side has a disproportionately high number of hate groups for the population size.

Okay. I retract lily-white from a description of Washington. I also suspect the western side is also richer and better educated, which might account for why the eastern side is more hateful.

I wasn't trying to pick on Washington or trying to suggest it has a bad track record, but the same census put the black population at 3.6 percent.

Again, I don't have data to link to back it up, but I think it's far more common to have racial hostility where there's a perception of scarcity rather than plenty (lower income) and a sense of groups are competing for resources. Even most crazy white racists aren't going to feel really threatened by a group that makes up less than 5% of the population, I wouldn't guess.

I kind of think the hate groups that do exist up in the northwest are transplanted crazies from elsewhere, who sought it out for its whiteness.