Would you survive a Serious Situation?

[nietzsche]

(1) Having a gun can be very persuasive.

(2) Having a group with guns can be even more persuasive.

(3) All others must spend time finding guns while those with guns can spend that time on gaining a first-mover advantage.

I know all that, and yet I don't find it indispensable to survive.

Americans are gun-crazy.

Cooperation would be more decisive than gun-threats.

By cooperation, do you mean cooperation with people with guns?

I was thinking more long term. In short term would be shocked trying to figure out what happened. They would mourn their dead. No doubt there will be those who would use guns in order to steal your food but after some time you would have figured out a way to deal with them.

What you will need long term is learn to fish, set up traps, cultivate your vegetables.

[nietzsche]

I want to make clear that I do think a gun would be useful, but not indispensable.

Useful at least to kill a deer. It would give you peace of mind. But any conflict would be resolved better by making agreements i.e. I see you want water for you and your family... I have plenty.. how about your wife gives me a bj and I give you guys 2 gallons of water?

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) Having a gun can be very persuasive.

(2) Having a group with guns can be even more persuasive.

(3) All others must spend time finding guns while those with guns can spend that time on gaining a first-mover advantage.

I know all that, and yet I don't find it indispensable to survive.

Americans are gun-crazy.

Cooperation would be more decisive than gun-threats.

Morality seems nice in the abstract, but in an unequal playing field, the weaker side tends to lose.

The fundamental cause of inducing cooperation hinges upon the relevant parties' capability to project force.

Guns are extremely useful for serving as a means of enforcement in an environment that lacks "the long arm of the law"--whether it be provided by a government or through voluntary associations. The OP involves a scenario that in the short-term is extremely unstable, thus the 2nd line above matters significantly.

(Even in the long-run, the second line applies; otherwise, without the means to project force, you'll get run over). Almost all societies are governed by this principle. Without an organization which has the capability to project force, then cooperation will be lacking. Guns are the most effective tools of enforcement. They are indispensable for survival.

You've been living in a world where you subtly experience the positive externalities of guns and enforcement. You just don't realize how crucial guns and the relevant organizations are for your security.

__________________________________________

Running into people's houses to a secure a gun is extremely risky.

Running to the gun store is everyone else's idea too. Have fun.

[Neoteny]

I work next to the CDC, so if shit goes down there, I'm totally fucked.

According to the Walking Dead, they have armored doors and let-in refugees, but the building is rigged to explode. So you may do okay for awhile.

And a killer wine cellar, so I can be thrashed when it happens. It would be nice to know which of the thirty or fifty some odd buildings on whichever CDC campus got the honor of representing the one building on that set. I guess the shutters and huge, open driveway might be a giveaway.

Wait... Neoteny is in Atlanta, Georgia. The CDC center in Walking Dead is in Georgia...

Seriously, Neoteny, if it's the same one... it could explode.

f*ck. I can see all of them from my lab. Maybe they're all rigged to go? Shit, guys, what if they're all rigged to go?! I'm really starting to freak out, man.

As far as the guns go, I was thinking bears and shit, because I'm getting the f*ck out of Atlanta if shit goes down, and I sure as shit am not getting eaten by a fucking panther. And, hell, now I have to worry about zombies too.

[BigBallinStalin]

honestly the first thing they teach you in survival school is how to evade and survive when your opponents are armed and you're not... guns can actually give you a false sense of security

Of course. Tactics matter. Almost all civilians lack that, and without guns, they're much worse off. For almost all civilians, wouldn't you agree with this?

[tkr4lf]

I want to make clear that I do think a gun would be useful, but not indispensable.

Useful at least to kill a deer. It would give you peace of mind. But any conflict would be resolved better by making agreements i.e. I see you want water for you and your family... I have plenty.. how about your wife gives me a bj and I give you guys 2 gallons of water?

Yeah, except for, it's going to go more like so...

Group of guys with lots of guns: Hi. I see you have lots of water. If you'll notice, we have lots of guns. Here's how this is going to go down. We're going to take your water, you're going to give us all BJ's, and then we're going to kill you.
You: Well, I guess.




Also, the thing about having a weapon in a situation like this is, you wouldn't need to count on others being agreeable. Cooperation is good and all, but what happens when others don't want to cooperate? What happens when the group you just encountered has food and water, but only enough to take care of themselves? I guess you're screwed. Well, unless you happen to have a gun and they don't. Then their food and water, and women if you want, are yours.

A serious situation like this would result in anarchy for a while. So it's good to look forward to the future when the skills to rebuild society would be needed, but in the short term, I think you're better off worrying about protecting yourself from the roving mobs of armed men looking for food, water and women. Or you could always become the leader of one of those mobs, or just a member. Either way could be fun.

But this is Texas, so most people have firearms. I'll need a really big one.

Didn't you once say you live in Austin? You're going to be facing a bunch of indie musicians, film students and baristas. If you even just have a slingshot you could quickly become the Ayatollah of Austin.

Have you ever seen a group of hungry, pissed off indie musicians, film students and baristas?

They don't need guns to be intimidating.




Besides, I'm thinking more of all the people just outside of Austin who are a bit more rural. They tend to have lots more guns than those of us in the city. And unfortunately for us in the city, we would tend to have way more food, shelter, water, etc. So I think those outside of Austin would be making their way into Austin to loot, etc.

I mean, I think I'd need at least some sort of handgun or hunting rifle. I guess the good thing is that the east side is the ghetto, so I could just make my way over there to one of the many gun stores and find some heat. Or there are pawn shops around. Whatever...I would just need a weapon.

But more than likely, I'd end up being raped and killed by a gang of recently "paroled" inmates with all sorts of police issue firearms. I'm just too pretty to survive in this sort of situation.

[BigBallinStalin]

But more than likely, I'd end up being raped and killed by a gang of recently "paroled" inmates with all sorts of police issue firearms. I'm just too pretty to survive in this sort of situation.

Then your chances of survival depend on your willingness to become an entrepreneurial male prostitute.

[nietzsche]

I've read your posts and though I think you are right in your scenarios, guns are not indispensable. Those who survived weren't the villains of the world, some good people survived, tamed people.

In the case I was robbed of almost all my stuff (I bet I would have many places to hide stuff) by a group of villains with guns, I would simply start over the next day, and would make associations with others to form a group to defend ourselves better.

[tkr4lf]

But more than likely, I'd end up being raped and killed by a gang of recently "paroled" inmates with all sorts of police issue firearms. I'm just too pretty to survive in this sort of situation.

Then your chances of survival depend on your willingness to become an entrepreneurial male prostitute.

I would prefer to discourage the rapes than to embrace them. To achieve that, I could just shove barbed wire in my ass, so that the first guy of the group to have a go would have a nice surprise. I imagine nobody else would rape me. But, without access to medical professionals, it's likely I would get an infection and die.

So maybe I just would have to become a male prostitute.

Eh, f*ck that. I'll find the biggest gun I can, get everybody that I know together, and we'll form our own gang.



Speaking of that, after thinking about it for a bit, I think the gangs would be well suited to survival in a world of this type. They already have access to plenty of weaponry, they're already used to killing, stealing, etc., they already have a strong group mentality built up, etc. I think they're uniquely qualified to survive in the short term. Long term, they'd probably die off, since it's rare that a gangster knows how to grow tomatoes or raise a cow. But as long as there is food in supermarkets and/or groups of people with food to steal, I think they'd be the dominant ones.

Survivalists and those backwoods militias out in Bumfuck, Arkansas, and similar places, would do pretty well too, I would imagine.

Most of the city folk would just be screwed.


Also, what type of serious situation are we talking about here? Something that wipes out all modern infrastructure? Like, would gas stations and the like still be working, or no? I mean, sure, they probably wouldn't have anybody working there, but you could probably still go get gas if you needed it, assuming they weren't destroyed. Are phones and utilities all cut off? Are we basically being plunged back into the dark ages? You didn't give us all that much info, saxi...

[BigBallinStalin]

@nietz

Well, at least I have some valuable information on a person who views guns as "not indispensable."

But you are right. Assuming that you somehow survive in the hectic short-run, you're a perfect candidate for "living upon your knees."

[BigBallinStalin]

But more than likely, I'd end up being raped and killed by a gang of recently "paroled" inmates with all sorts of police issue firearms. I'm just too pretty to survive in this sort of situation.

Then your chances of survival depend on your willingness to become an entrepreneurial male prostitute.

I would prefer to discourage the rapes than to embrace them. To achieve that, I could just shove barbed wire in my ass, so that the first guy of the group to have a go would have a nice surprise. I imagine nobody else would rape me. But, without access to medical professionals, it's likely I would get an infection and die.

So maybe I just would have to become a male prostitute.

Eh, f*ck that. I'll find the biggest gun I can, get everybody that I know together, and we'll form our own gang.



Speaking of that, after thinking about it for a bit, I think the gangs would be well suited to survival in a world of this type. They already have access to plenty of weaponry, they're already used to killing, stealing, etc., they already have a strong group mentality built up, etc. I think they're uniquely qualified to survive in the short term. Long term, they'd probably die off, since it's rare that a gangster knows how to grow tomatoes or raise a cow. But as long as there is food in supermarkets and/or groups of people with food to steal, I think they'd be the dominant ones.

I'd disagree. It depends on how well the gang can implement a tax which induces enough of an incentive for the taxpayers to produce.

A government is essentially a robber gang, which at the very least would provide you with the Public Good of Security. Isn't that nice?

[nietzsche]

Yes, successful criminals become legitimized. Like the Medicci.

[saxitoxin]

(1) Having a gun can be very persuasive.

(2) Having a group with guns can be even more persuasive.

(3) All others must spend time finding guns while those with guns can spend that time on gaining a first-mover advantage.

I know all that, and yet I don't find it indispensable to survive.

Americans are gun-crazy.

Cooperation would be more decisive than gun-threats.

By cooperation, do you mean cooperation with people with guns?

I was thinking more long term. In short term would be shocked trying to figure out what happened. They would mourn their dead. No doubt there will be those who would use guns in order to steal your food but after some time you would have figured out a way to deal with them.

What you will need long term is learn to fish, set up traps, cultivate your vegetables.

I think these are good points, though the scenario I had in mind doesn't really involve 90% of the world's population just dropping dead one day.

I'm imagining an event that has minimal direct impact on human life but, as a result of which, electricity, law enforcement and food distribution are permanently disabled. When I say 90% of the population die, I imagine that occurs over the course of 6-12 months from starvation, untreated medical conditions and increased criminal violence.

Maybe this is a solar EMP, but I'd prefer just to keep it as an unnamed disaster to prevent this from becoming a Haggis-AOG-Metsfanmax physics thread.

[saxitoxin]

But more than likely, I'd end up being raped and killed by a gang of recently "paroled" inmates with all sorts of police issue firearms. I'm just too pretty to survive in this sort of situation.

Then your chances of survival depend on your willingness to become an entrepreneurial male prostitute.

I would prefer to discourage the rapes than to embrace them. To achieve that, I could just shove barbed wire in my ass, so that the first guy of the group to have a go would have a nice surprise. I imagine nobody else would rape me. But, without access to medical professionals, it's likely I would get an infection and die.

So maybe I just would have to become a male prostitute.

Eh, f*ck that. I'll find the biggest gun I can, get everybody that I know together, and we'll form our own gang.



Speaking of that, after thinking about it for a bit, I think the gangs would be well suited to survival in a world of this type. They already have access to plenty of weaponry, they're already used to killing, stealing, etc., they already have a strong group mentality built up, etc. I think they're uniquely qualified to survive in the short term. Long term, they'd probably die off, since it's rare that a gangster knows how to grow tomatoes or raise a cow. But as long as there is food in supermarkets and/or groups of people with food to steal, I think they'd be the dominant ones.

Survivalists and those backwoods militias out in Bumfuck, Arkansas, and similar places, would do pretty well too, I would imagine.

Most of the city folk would just be screwed.


Also, what type of serious situation are we talking about here? Something that wipes out all modern infrastructure? Like, would gas stations and the like still be working, or no? I mean, sure, they probably wouldn't have anybody working there, but you could probably still go get gas if you needed it, assuming they weren't destroyed. Are phones and utilities all cut off? Are we basically being plunged back into the dark ages? You didn't give us all that much info, saxi...

I think you're right about gangs ... I'd imagine remnants of the armed forces and police would do best, followed by criminal gangs (or any organized body of men). I don't think they'd need to worry about growing tomatoes or raising a cow. Skilled workers could be pressed into labor to fulfill functional needs.

[/]

A roving gang of raiders with guns realistically would probably have a lower survival chance than a Neanderthal in my opinion.
If food stocks would drop to a point where we are aware one in every ten of us will die, then people with a sociopathic mindset than band together would be in the most danger, there would be few people to raid that still had food, since what little there was to go around to start with would quickly dwindle, and when the mindset is "I need to survive today, and that's all that matters" the raiders would almost certainly not keep prisoners alive, either purposely or accidentally (undernourishment, exposure, etc) with no reliable means to procure supplies, infighting would be enormous, a sociopath would rather have two guns on his own hip, than two other sociopaths with guns to cooperate with, and could you honestly sleep soundly in a room full of murderers?
I imagine within the first month the gang would end up composed of one diseased, wounded, sunburned, cannibal raider armed to the teeth like Rambo.
He would die long before there would be new crops to raid.
It's just like those Life After People specials; a roach may be a hardy pest, but as it turns out they are completely reliant on civilization.

As for myself? My state, and everyone else living in desert regions without wells or reliable rivers would probably die without access to an aquafier barring some lucky rainy days to sustain us until we remake the irrigation systems.

[fadedpsychosis]

it is true those without training would most likely turn to guns as an easy way of getting what they want, while supplies last... the people who'd best survive in my opinion are ranchers and small farmers: they're already making what they need to survive, and most of them that I've met know how to protect themselves pretty well. THEY are the ones that have the skills that everyone else needs to survive, and it's sad we've lost so many of those skills in our 'modern' age...

[Maugena]

(1) Having a gun can be very persuasive.

(2) Having a group with guns can be even more persuasive.

(3) All others must spend time finding guns while those with guns can spend that time on gaining a first-mover advantage.

I know all that, and yet I don't find it indispensable to survive.

Americans are gun-crazy.

Cooperation would be more decisive than gun-threats.

Morality seems nice in the abstract, but in an unequal playing field, the weaker side tends to lose.

The fundamental cause of inducing cooperation hinges upon the relevant parties' capability to project force.

Guns are extremely useful for serving as a means of enforcement in an environment that lacks "the long arm of the law"--whether it be provided by a government or through voluntary associations. The OP involves a scenario that in the short-term is extremely unstable, thus the 2nd line above matters significantly.

(Even in the long-run, the second line applies; otherwise, without the means to project force, you'll get run over). Almost all societies are governed by this principle. Without an organization which has the capability to project force, then cooperation will be lacking. Guns are the most effective tools of enforcement. They are indispensable for survival.

You've been living in a world where you subtly experience the positive externalities of guns and enforcement. You just don't realize how crucial guns and the relevant organizations are for your security.

__________________________________________

Running into people's houses to a secure a gun is extremely risky.

Running to the gun store is everyone else's idea too. Have fun.

Weapons would be a better word choice, here. Though guns are usually the most effective.

[BigBallinStalin]

it is true those without training would most likely turn to guns as an easy way of getting what they want, while supplies last... the people who'd best survive in my opinion are ranchers and small farmers: they're already making what they need to survive, and most of them that I've met know how to protect themselves pretty well. THEY are the ones that have the skills that everyone else needs to survive, and it's sad we've lost so many of those skills in our 'modern' age...

Why? In case the world's population suddenly drops to 10% because zombies?

Aren't there more realistic concerns to take seriously?

[PLAYER57832]

Of course, there is no gaurantee any single person will survive the initial "whatever".

But, assuming I did.. I would probably fare better than a good number of people. The question is whether I would really want to, particularly if my kids did not survive.