6 ms·

What's your plan if something does happen, be it this virus, a war or other? Sit back and wait for the state to save you? I'm not American myself but the lack

What's your plan if something does happen, be it this virus, a war or other? Sit back and wait for the state to save you? I'm not American myself but the lack of self-reliance exhibited by non-Americans, particularly Europeans, is sometimes bewildering.

pinkfoot 7y ago
Those who have lived through a failed state know that no amount of personal fire-power will protect you from a ruling-party politician with the local constabulary in his pocket. But if it makes you feel better…
- eric-hu 7y ago
  A more generous interpretation of comment you're replying to: It's not that guns and ammo are useful for resisting your local government. They're saying that in the event of catastrophe, it's not a smart bet to rely on local government for protection from human chaos (like looters after your food).
  - Intermernet 7y ago
    Who causes the degradation of society more? The starving person looting, or the "prepared" person shooting? I don't have an answer for this, but it's something worth keeping in the back of your mind when discussing theoretical catastrophes.
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    I didn't think my comment was ungenerous - apologies. What I mean is that evidence shows that when a society collapses, the corrupt and evil will explicitly use the state's monopoly on violence to take what you are trying to defend. Typically they juice this by exploiting local grievances to de-ligitimise your claim to your property and co-opt the local law enforcement with promises of future gains. Then they will appear at your homestead WITH the local enforcement - who will do nothing when the mob takes yours assets. At one level this is to discourage you and increase your sense of isolation - to get you to just abandon your assets and leave. At which point they move onto the next property/resource owner. However, at another level they WANT to to fight back - with firearms preferably. Not only will this still be deemed illegal (under laws passed by the old functioning society) but hopefully (from their perspective) you injure or kill one of the riled-up mob - further de-legitimising you. At this point, the co-opted law enforcement will step in, arrest you, etc. Zimbabwe, the Balkans, and Indonesia are text-book examples. When society fails violently, there really is no hope. I wish it wasn't thus, but is is and will be.
    - Ghjklov 7y ago
      I like to think that police and military personnel have family and friends they care about too, and aren't soulless robots ready to gun down their fellow men and women who they took vows to serve when they joined the force at the command of a suit in Washington. Think, if you were them, what kind of world would you like you, your family, and friends to live in? I find that enough of them would make the right decision that if the PEOPLE fought back, they would have a winning chance. Think about the rest of the world too. Is Russia going to sit back and do nothing, when they could be funding/supporting those rebels against the U.S. government instead? AND they can do it from the moral high ground too, since they're helping the oppressed rebels against a totalitarian government. Extra power. The U.S. was founded on rebellion. And I believe enough Americans would readily backstab an illegitimate U.S. government (one that has stopped serving its people and instead serves itself) in pursuit of good.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - pinkfoot 7y ago
        1. s/I like to think/I like to HOPE/ FTFY 2.The U.S. was founded on rebellion. So was Somalia. Its not a sufficient reason to protect you from the failure mode I explained above.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  If the army come after you no amount of arms will save you because they have more and they’re better trained. But if you have a defensible position, enough food and ammunition a small armed group can absolutely hold off another small armed group or a much larger worse armed one. Most of these people are no doubt basically LARPing in their heads. See the Koreans during the LA riots. Even against the state a small group can hold out for a relatively long time. See Waco. It took tanks to breach their defenses.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  Few are buying guns and ammo to protect themselves from the government. They are buying them to protect themselves from other citizens should riots break out and rule of law break down, even momentarily. In the last 30 years there have been riots in the US after the announcement of the results of criminal trials in which millions of dollars in damages and people attacking each other. People assault each other every year during Black Friday sales. It's not all that absurd of a notion that it might be good to be able to protect oneself in the event of a truly destructive pandemic.
nl 7y ago
What's your plan if something does happen, be it this virus, a war or other? This varies very much on the "something". In the case of a virus like this I have plans to do what seems sensible - keep washing my hands, isolate myself as much as possible. In the case of a war I'll hope my side wins and keep my head down if it doesn't. Not sure stockpiled ammo is going to be the critical factor there!
tarsinge 7y ago
Regarding war before the 20th century, Total war[1] was an exception. The plan for European civilians since antiquity was basically life as usual, war was a matter of political power and resources, farms weren't burned and population killed since they were the goal of the war in the first place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
- TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
  Everyone here is raised learning the history of USA, overthrowing a tyrannical empire and creating our own democracy. We're taught that the Constitution was designed with inherant distrust and selfishness of politicians in mind. Many of us in non-urban areas grew up in areas with police response times greater than 20 minutes. All this and more combines into a self-reliant culture somewhat distrustful of the government that makes us ready to protect ourselves and our families. When considering this culture and context, guns and ammo during times of stress makes more sense.
- nl 7y ago
  The plan for European civilians since antiquity was basically life as usual, war was a matter of political power and resources, farms weren't burned and population killed since they were the goal of the war in the first place. Total war may have been the exception, but farms and cities both suffered enormously during pre-20th century European warfare. Indeed the page you linked gave a bunch of examples of total destruction prior to the 20th century. Outside those examples, most warfare then relied on looting farms for supplies (including seed crops)[1]. Indeed there was a whole technique of warfare called Chevauchée which relied on this before the 14th century: A chevauchée [..] was a raiding method of medieval warfare for weakening the enemy, primarily by burning and pillaging enemy territory in order to reduce the productivity of a region, as opposed to siege warfare or wars of conquest... The chevauchée has gained recognition for its use during the Hundred Years' War between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France. It was not a new tactic and had been used many times before; for example, William the Conqueror had used the tactic before the Battle of Hastings to encourage Harold to engage in a battle.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Supplies_and_logistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Supplies_and_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauchée https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauchée

pinkfoot 7y ago

Those who have lived through a failed state know that no amount of personal fire-power will protect you from a ruling-party politician with the local constabulary in his pocket. But if it makes you feel better…

eric-hu 7y ago
A more generous interpretation of comment you're replying to: It's not that guns and ammo are useful for resisting your local government. They're saying that in the event of catastrophe, it's not a smart bet to rely on local government for protection from human chaos (like looters after your food).
- Intermernet 7y ago
  Who causes the degradation of society more? The starving person looting, or the "prepared" person shooting? I don't have an answer for this, but it's something worth keeping in the back of your mind when discussing theoretical catastrophes.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  I didn't think my comment was ungenerous - apologies. What I mean is that evidence shows that when a society collapses, the corrupt and evil will explicitly use the state's monopoly on violence to take what you are trying to defend. Typically they juice this by exploiting local grievances to de-ligitimise your claim to your property and co-opt the local law enforcement with promises of future gains. Then they will appear at your homestead WITH the local enforcement - who will do nothing when the mob takes yours assets. At one level this is to discourage you and increase your sense of isolation - to get you to just abandon your assets and leave. At which point they move onto the next property/resource owner. However, at another level they WANT to to fight back - with firearms preferably. Not only will this still be deemed illegal (under laws passed by the old functioning society) but hopefully (from their perspective) you injure or kill one of the riled-up mob - further de-legitimising you. At this point, the co-opted law enforcement will step in, arrest you, etc. Zimbabwe, the Balkans, and Indonesia are text-book examples. When society fails violently, there really is no hope. I wish it wasn't thus, but is is and will be.
  - Ghjklov 7y ago
    I like to think that police and military personnel have family and friends they care about too, and aren't soulless robots ready to gun down their fellow men and women who they took vows to serve when they joined the force at the command of a suit in Washington. Think, if you were them, what kind of world would you like you, your family, and friends to live in? I find that enough of them would make the right decision that if the PEOPLE fought back, they would have a winning chance. Think about the rest of the world too. Is Russia going to sit back and do nothing, when they could be funding/supporting those rebels against the U.S. government instead? AND they can do it from the moral high ground too, since they're helping the oppressed rebels against a totalitarian government. Extra power. The U.S. was founded on rebellion. And I believe enough Americans would readily backstab an illegitimate U.S. government (one that has stopped serving its people and instead serves itself) in pursuit of good.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      1. s/I like to think/I like to HOPE/ FTFY 2.The U.S. was founded on rebellion. So was Somalia. Its not a sufficient reason to protect you from the failure mode I explained above.
barry-cotter 7y ago
If the army come after you no amount of arms will save you because they have more and they’re better trained. But if you have a defensible position, enough food and ammunition a small armed group can absolutely hold off another small armed group or a much larger worse armed one. Most of these people are no doubt basically LARPing in their heads. See the Koreans during the LA riots. Even against the state a small group can hold out for a relatively long time. See Waco. It took tanks to breach their defenses.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bart_spoon 7y ago
Few are buying guns and ammo to protect themselves from the government. They are buying them to protect themselves from other citizens should riots break out and rule of law break down, even momentarily. In the last 30 years there have been riots in the US after the announcement of the results of criminal trials in which millions of dollars in damages and people attacking each other. People assault each other every year during Black Friday sales. It's not all that absurd of a notion that it might be good to be able to protect oneself in the event of a truly destructive pandemic.

nl 7y ago

What's your plan if something does happen, be it this virus, a war or other? This varies very much on the "something". In the case of a virus like this I have plans to do what seems sensible - keep washing my hands, isolate myself as much as possible. In the case of a war I'll hope my side wins and keep my head down if it doesn't. Not sure stockpiled ammo is going to be the critical factor there!

tarsinge 7y ago

Regarding war before the 20th century, Total war[1] was an exception. The plan for European civilians since antiquity was basically life as usual, war was a matter of political power and resources, farms weren't burned and population killed since they were the goal of the war in the first place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
Everyone here is raised learning the history of USA, overthrowing a tyrannical empire and creating our own democracy. We're taught that the Constitution was designed with inherant distrust and selfishness of politicians in mind. Many of us in non-urban areas grew up in areas with police response times greater than 20 minutes. All this and more combines into a self-reliant culture somewhat distrustful of the government that makes us ready to protect ourselves and our families. When considering this culture and context, guns and ammo during times of stress makes more sense.
nl 7y ago
The plan for European civilians since antiquity was basically life as usual, war was a matter of political power and resources, farms weren't burned and population killed since they were the goal of the war in the first place. Total war may have been the exception, but farms and cities both suffered enormously during pre-20th century European warfare. Indeed the page you linked gave a bunch of examples of total destruction prior to the 20th century. Outside those examples, most warfare then relied on looting farms for supplies (including seed crops)[1]. Indeed there was a whole technique of warfare called Chevauchée which relied on this before the 14th century: A chevauchée [..] was a raiding method of medieval warfare for weakening the enemy, primarily by burning and pillaging enemy territory in order to reduce the productivity of a region, as opposed to siege warfare or wars of conquest... The chevauchée has gained recognition for its use during the Hundred Years' War between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France. It was not a new tactic and had been used many times before; for example, William the Conqueror had used the tactic before the Battle of Hastings to encourage Harold to engage in a battle.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Supplies_and_logistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Supplies_and_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauchée https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauchée