Guns in America

[Russell Nash]

Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.

Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help.  Ruminants eat grass.  Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick.  The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment  to E.coli.  This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer. 

This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs.  It is a stupid ass crop.  The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.

[Mr. Tweedy]

You are all right.  I see it now.

I am a pawn and must accept this fact.  Any attempt to move sideways will result in doom.  I am helpless, utterly.  All circumstance of life that allow me remain alive are so far beyond my control that nothing I or any sized group of my fellows could do cold possibly make the least bit of difference.  We are legless grubs who need to be fed and cleaned by Society if we are to survive for even a day.  The world is too rigid and inflexible, too dependent on immutable processes for anything other than the status quo to ever be possible.  Human ingenuity is a myth: Free people cannot invent solutions to problems.  Only bureaucracy can do that, lack-of-god bless it.  I am dependent on the benevolence and wisdom of Society for all things, and I should not question it or presume that it can be changed.

Thanks all for the lesson.  I am reformed.

[Russell Nash]

You are all right.  I see it now.

At least your first sentence was right

The whole point was that the world is far more complex that you are ever willing to acknowledge.  Trying to just pull out guns and change the world doesn't work.  Just rying to say, "We won't play with you anymore," doesn't work.  If you want to change the world, be knowledgable of your subject and use words.  Becoming an activist or a political volunteer will do far more than running away and trying to start your own country or trying to kill low level enforcers of the law.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Sigh.

I see again that you have completely failed to comprehend my arguments.  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is because of my poor pedagogical skills.

Later, all.

[eytanz]

Sigh.

I see again that you have completely failed to comprehend my arguments.  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is because of my poor pedagogical skills.

Later, all.

Ok, so maybe you could please explain what your actual arguments are, sans the sarcasm and petulent sulking? Honestly, I normally enjoy debating stuff with you even when I disagree, but I can't figure out what it is you are trying to say in this thread.

Could you please explain to me how is our saying that arming the population of Illinois is not a good solution against a hypothethical tyrranical federal government is saying that human ingenuity is a myth?

[Russell Nash]

Sigh.

I see again that you have completely failed to comprehend my arguments.  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is because of my poor pedagogical skills.

Later, all.

I ignored all of your sarcasm, because, as usual, it was totally irrelevant to the arguement.  None of it explained how you expected 13 million people without survival training to survive a blockade by a vastly superior force.  Sulking and trying to play Martyr doesn't answer anything.  Why can't you just admit that you answered my comment about self-sufficiency without thinking it through? 

No matter what you say it won't change the fact that we are all interdependant.  This is a good thing.  This is what keeps major wars from breaking out.  This is the reason behind the EU.  An area of the world that has seen the most wars in the last two centuries is now a no fighting zone.  For the first time in history France and Germany can't even think of starting a war against each other.  It's all good.  Not perfect, but good.

[Thaurismunths]

Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.

Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help.  Ruminants eat grass.  Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick.  The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment  to E.coli.  This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer. 

This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs.  It is a stupid ass crop.  The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.

Just what do you do for a living Russell? Edit Encyclopedias? Coach Ken Jennings?

[Mr. Tweedy]

Neither of you proved that Illinois could not survive!  I know full well that most of our corn does not go to feed humans and I understand hybrid seeds.  Neither you or Thaurismunths takes into account two very salient facts 1.) Illinois produces a superabundance of crops.  Most of Illinois's crops are not grown to feed Illinois: They're put to a 1001 other uses.  Removing the 1001 uses is irrelevant if all we're talking about is food.  Also note that corn is far from being our only crop.  2.) People are flexible.  The fact the we plant specialized hybrid corn now would not prevent us from planting edible corn in future seasons (or in shifting to planting more pumpkins and watermelons, for that matter).  It is a minority of the crop, but edible corn does exists in Illinois (I've eaten it) and we could shift production from one type to the other.

The two of you have a very rigid view of what is possible.  The current agricultural economy of Illinois is not geared toward feeding Illinois.  It is geared toward exportation for profit and is as much a part of world industry as food supply.  I say it could be re-geared in short order.  If the economy was re-geared to focus internally, Illinois would have no problem feeding itself, even if it operated at only a tiny fraction of its current efficiency.  You assume that Illinois residents would behave with unfathomable stupidity and keep on growing the same crops and running the same industries as if there were no siege.  I say we would use our brains and find ways to put our vast resources to work in solving our problems.  We would not continue growing inedible crops for export if there was no market to export them to.  Duh.

We'd change our ways and lifestyle to match the new situation.  For instance, Chicago would become a ghost town.  My job making ads at this lousy paper would disappear and I would have to start spending half my day tending a garden.  We'd all have to learn to sew to patch up our clothes.  Things would change and be harder, but we would not die.  We would not blithely continue out currently lifestyle as if things had not changed.  We would adapt.  (Those who refused to adapt would die, but I would consider that a form of suicide.)

As for spraying herbicide on the fields: The original conditions were that Illinois was "cut off" for purpose of being "starved out".  You were the one who came with the unrealistic hypothetical situation.  Adding chemical warfare to your scenario at this late point in the game is cheating.  You can't make up new rules once the game is in progress.

This is really the last thing I'm going to say simply because I don't have time to argue perpetually:

It is my judgement that our differences of opinion come down to this essential difference:

I understand that the future is infinity uncertain.  There is infinite potential for destruction and suffering and infinite potential for progress and happiness.  Anything can happen, and I have no crystal ball.  Understanding this, I think it is wise to be as prepared as possible for any eventuality.  I do not expect my society to devolve into tyranny, and I do not expect my home to be assaulted, but I understand that the future is not determined by my expectations.

You all do not embrace this idea.  You judge that the current social order is immutable and place limits on what you judge to be possible that are both rigid and arbitrary.  You think you have a crystal ball in which you have already seen all possible outcomes, and so you feel no need to be prepared for any future other than that which you expect.  You take on faith that there will be no tyranny and no assault and have no Plan B should your faith prove unjustified.


And now I really should be done.  (Curse my lack of discipline.)

[Thaurismunths]

Neither of you proved that Illinois could not survive!

No Mr. Tweedy. It is you who has not proven that Illinois can survive.
Also, I didn't say it couldn't, I just said that Russell is right about the corn.

This is really the last thing I'm going to say simply because I don't have time to argue perpetually:

I Think You Do Mr. Tweedy

[Thaurismunths]

Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.

Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help.  Ruminants eat grass.  Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick.  The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment  to E.coli.  This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer. 

This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs.  It is a stupid ass crop.  The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.

Also, could you cite something for this? I'm not coming up with anything.
I understood that bovine rumination was able to break down corn along with other roughage and only the seed coat was an issue.

[eytanz]

Neither of you proved that Illinois could not survive!

Thaurismunths - I think he means me and Russel. I concede that we didn't prove that Illinois couldn't survive. I also agree with Thauris that you didn't prove that it can. I don't think that that matter can be resolved. I also really am not sure why we're focusing on this, which seems to be an interesting, but peripheral tangent.

As for spraying herbicide on the fields: The original conditions were that Illinois was "cut off" for purpose of being "starved out".  You were the one who came with the unrealistic hypothetical situation.  Adding chemical warfare to your scenario at this late point in the game is cheating.  You can't make up new rules once the game is in progress.

Huh? I'm really confused by this. What exactly are we talking about here? I thought we were talking about actual possible futures. In the real world, new rules are made all the time. I'm perfectly willing to concede that in whatever thought experiment you are running, Illinois is perfectly capable of surviving. Explain to me how this relates to a possible real war.

Remember, the whole discussion emerged out of the question of "what do you need guns for". I assume you're not in favor of arming yourself and Chodon for the purpose of playing some sort of role playing game. You're assuming they're going to help in a real revolution, if one is necessary. So let me re-frame the question. Lets stop debating if Illinois can survive under a particularly far-fetched set of circumstances that Russel came up with, and instead let me ask you: what are the circumstances in which you think having a gun can help you?

You all do not embrace this idea.  You judge that the current social order is immutable and place limits on what you judge to be possible that are both rigid and arbitrary.  You think you have a crystal ball in which you have already seen all possible outcomes, and so you feel no need to be prepared for any future other than that which you expect.  You take on faith that there will be no tyranny and no assault and have no Plan B should your faith prove unjustified.

That's a particularly black&white way of presenting the discussion, which is therefore entirely untrue.

I do reject the proposition that anything can happen. But I also reject the view that "the current social order is immutable" and that there are narrow limits on what is possible. I think that there's a certain set of things that are likely to happen, and there are a certain set of things that are highly unlikely to happen. I also believe that there are consequences to every action taken to prepare. It is my belief that you are preparing for a very unlikely set of circumstances. And I believe that in doing so, you are paying a heavy price.

Imagine that I came to you and said "I have a proposal for you. There's a chance that genetic weapon tests will create a mutant super-virus that will decimate our society. But, if you pay me $500, I will sell you this paper face mask that will protect you from mutant super-virus attack." I doubt you would give me the $500 for the t-shirt. The reason is twofold - while a mutant super-virus is not impossible in this day and age, it's also not likely enough for you to necessarily want to pay $500 for protection. And even if you would, a paper face mask is unlikely to help you much. Not impossible - but it's not particularly likely to be an effective protection.

It is my view that not only the kind of collapse of society you seem to be preparing for is pretty unlikely (though not impossible), I think that it's also pretty unlikely that if it happens, arming the population with conventional weaponry would actually be much help.

Now, we can debate the above for a long time, and I respect that you may not be interested in doing so anymore. But I ask you to please not assume that just because I don't agree with you on what is likely and what is effective, I also hold a bizzarely rigid world view. I do you the courtsey of not assuming you are a moron just because we disagree, and I expect you to extend the same to me.

[Russell Nash]

Neither of you proved that Illinois could not survive!  I know full well that most of our corn does not go to feed humans and I understand hybrid seeds.  Neither you or Thaurismunths takes into account two very salient facts 1.) Illinois produces a superabundance of crops.  Most of Illinois's crops are not grown to feed Illinois: They're put to a 1001 other uses.  Removing the 1001 uses is irrelevant if all we're talking about is food.  Also note that corn is far from being our only crop.  2.) People are flexible.  The fact the we plant specialized hybrid corn now would not prevent us from planting edible corn in future seasons (or in shifting to planting more pumpkins and watermelons, for that matter).  It is a minority of the crop, but edible corn does exists in Illinois (I've eaten it) and we could shift production from one type to the other.

Already handled.  See above mention of seeds. 

The two of you have a very rigid view of what is possible.  The current agricultural economy of Illinois is not geared toward feeding Illinois.  It is geared toward exportation for profit and is as much a part of world industry as food supply.  I say it could be re-geared in short order.  If the economy was re-geared to focus internally, Illinois would have no problem feeding itself, even if it operated at only a tiny fraction of its current efficiency.  You assume that Illinois residents would behave with unfathomable stupidity and keep on growing the same crops and running the same industries as if there were no siege.  I say we would use our brains and find ways to put our vast resources to work in solving our problems.  We would not continue growing inedible crops for export if there was no market to export them to.  Duh.

Already handled.  See above mention of seeds.  Different crops also need different equipment and different knowledge.

We'd change our ways and lifestyle to match the new situation.  For instance, Chicago would become a ghost town.  My job making ads at this lousy paper would disappear and I would have to start spending half my day tending a garden.  We'd all have to learn to sew to patch up our clothes.  Things would change and be harder, but we would not die.  We would not blithely continue out currently lifestyle as if things had not changed.  We would adapt.  (Those who refused to adapt would die, but I would consider that a form of suicide.)

You said without privation.  Returning to the 18th century would be privation.  See above about starvation.

As for spraying herbicide on the fields: The original conditions were that Illinois was "cut off" for purpose of being "starved out".  You were the one who came with the unrealistic hypothetical situation.  Adding chemical warfare to your scenario at this late point in the game is cheating.  You can't make up new rules once the game is in progress.

You're the one who came up with the entire changing of a large economy in less than one growing season.  That is beyond unrealistic.  You also said without privation and then changed it to just survive.  I gave you your fantasycornland and proved that if you somehow did it losing less than half of your population to starvation it could easily be removed.

This is really the last thing I'm going to say simply because I don't have time to argue perpetually:

It is my judgement that our differences of opinion come down to this essential difference:

I understand that the future is infinity uncertain.  There is infinite potential for destruction and suffering and infinite potential for progress and happiness.  Anything can happen, and I have no crystal ball.  Understanding this, I think it is wise to be as prepared as possible for any eventuality.  I do not expect my society to devolve into tyranny, and I do not expect my home to be assaulted, but I understand that the future is not determined by my expectations.

You all do not embrace this idea.  You judge that the current social order is immutable and place limits on what you judge to be possible that are both rigid and arbitrary.  You think you have a crystal ball in which you have already seen all possible outcomes, and so you feel no need to be prepared for any future other than that which you expect.  You take on faith that there will be no tyranny and no assault and have no Plan B should your faith prove unjustified.


And now I really should be done.  (Curse my lack of discipline.)

My point was that it was Assinine to be prepared for the need to rise up against your government, when taking to the street with a gun will make you the first to die.  Fighting the powers that be with words before the government becomes a tyranny will have a far greater chance of making an armed uprising even more unlikely and unneccesary.  But you'd just rather sit there and wait for the need to raise arms does come.

There is a problem now and it is criminals getting guns and legal gun owners not securing thier weapons.  But you'd rather have an armed criminal come skidding his car across your lawn and threatening your family than try to make it harder for him to get a gun.  Assinine! 

As I type this my home defense system is stretched out on the couch next to me.  She also is a good mobile personal defense system.  On a cold winter's night she's also a foot warmer.

[Russell Nash]

Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.

Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help.  Ruminants eat grass.  Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick.  The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment  to E.coli.  This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer. 

This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs.  It is a stupid ass crop.  The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.

Also, could you cite something for this? I'm not coming up with anything.
I understood that bovine rumination was able to break down corn along with other roughage and only the seed coat was an issue.

There's a whole section in The Omnivore's Dilemma.  In general it's just a great book.

[Russell Nash]

Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.

Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help.  Ruminants eat grass.  Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick.  The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment  to E.coli.  This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer. 

This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs.  It is a stupid ass crop.  The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.

Just what do you do for a living Russell? Edit Encyclopedias? Coach Ken Jennings?

I got bored with professional sports and cars and put all of that brain capacity to other uses.  Try it.  It's amazing how much space it frees up.  Being curious also helps.  Oh yeah, never trust what someone tells you.  Research it yourself.  Also ignore most pop culture trends.  They're another waste of brain capacity.  I had to look up Ken Jennings, so I could get your joke.

Last but not least.  When you don't know anything about a subject, shut your mouth.  That way people don't realize it when you don't know something.  It's all in other people's perception.

[Thaurismunths]

I'll cover both at once:

I've hear of The Omnivore's Dilemma, and I'll have to bump it up on the reading list. Thanks.
---
I'm with on that. Shwankie and I don't watch TV just the occasional movie, we're both avid readers of more than just SF. Currently most of our energies go in to wilderness survival, as we are avid hikers, and organic foods. Neither of us have any delusions of 'living off the land' at TEOTWAWKI, but we know all about preserving foods (ever canned butter?) and are learning how to subsidize our meals off of wild foods. We also take a special interest in organic and sustainable food practices.
The real trick to keeping your ignorance cloaked is to know what you're ignorant about. I'm surprised to hear about the corn intolerance because of the growing trend in whole plant silage feeding programs. Very fascinating.

[Russell Nash]

The real trick to keeping your ignorance cloaked is to know what you're ignorant about. I'm surprised to hear about the corn intolerance because of the growing trend in whole plant silage feeding programs. Very fascinating.

Mostly I was just joking.  I'm just a curious guy and I only talk when I know what I'm talking about.  If I'm ignorant, I listen and learn.

[qwints]

Now the scaffold stood high and eternity was near
She stood in the crowd but she shed not a tear
but sometimes at night when the cold wind blows
She comes to my grave and she mourns over my bones

Guns help people kill people.

[Thaurismunths]

Now the scaffold stood high and eternity was near
She stood in the crowd but she shed not a tear
but sometimes at night when the cold wind blows
She comes to my grave and she mourns over my bones

Nick Cave, nice.

[eytanz]

Now the scaffold stood high and eternity was near
She stood in the crowd but she shed not a tear
but sometimes at night when the cold wind blows
She comes to my grave and she mourns over my bones

Nick Cave, nice.

Not really, no. The song is originally by Lefty Frizzell, and was first recorded in 1959, though it was covered many, many times over the years. Nick Cave's version is the best one I've heard, though.

[Planish]

Now the scaffold stood high and eternity was near
She stood in the crowd but she shed not a tear
but sometimes at night when the cold wind blows
She comes to my grave and she mourns over my bones

Guns help people kill people.

Well, um, there's no mention of guns in that song.

Ten years ago, on a cold dark night
Someone was killed, 'neath the town hall light
There were few at the scene, but they all agreed
That the slayer who ran, looked a lot like me

I like The Band's cover version best.