Guns in America

[eytanz]

Tweedy - besides all the really good points Russel is making, I'd like to point out something I've recently mentioned in a different thread. I am currently visiting my parents in Israel. If I walk less than a mile, I cross over into the occupied Palestinian territories. The population there lives under a very oppressive regime. They do not have almost any rights. Hell, if they are sick, they can be stopped from going to the hospital and they can do nothing about it.

They are also one of the most armed populaces in the world. Far more than Illinois. And they are organized - not only on a local level, but they have proper training camps, and they well funded by external governments. There's a constant supply of new weapons and ammunition. Israel has tried to block that out, but hasn't been succesful. The armed struggle has been going on for over 20 years now.

Do you really think this is a model for a succesful resistance? or that your considerably less organized, considerably less well funded, grouping of well-meaning armed civilians has any chance of doing better against the US government and military should they choose to direct their ire at you?

Remember that one big advantage the Palestinians have is that Israel can't direct nuclear weapons at them since the country is so small. The US government has nukes to spare, and can easily keep surviving if Illinois is an irradiated mess.

[Simon]

Fifth: The talk of "peaceful revolutions" is foolish.  Peaceful revolution works under two circumstances: 1.) When the state is about to die anyway (collapse of the Soviet Union) or 2.) when the state is good and decent enough to refrain from mass murder (peaceful resistance to the British in India).

Harry Turtledove wrote an excellent story called "The Last Article" that addresses that topic.  In a hypothetical history, the Nazis win WWII and move in to take over the British colony of India, where they clash with Mohandas Gandhi.  The non-violent resistance that was so effective against the British is a distrous failure against the Third Reich because the Nazis have no decency.  Whereas the morality of the British compelled them to tolerate non-violent resistance, the Nazis simply mow the protesters down with machine guns and execute Gandhi is a back alley.

This discussion inspired me to re-read "If I Were a Czech", it only takes 5 minutes...  It's an interesting piece of history, and you can find it here.

He was a devious piece of work.

[Chodon]

I think I'm going to follow Czhorat and bow out after this post. 

It seems as though this discussion has become one of trying to decide how to resist an oppressive government.  It has turned into throwing around theories about how it would happen and the best way to resist.  Let's face it: nobody knows if it's going to be something as obvious as a zombie attack or something as insidious as the government slowly rotting from the inside over generations.  Both armed and unarmed revolutions have occured, worked, and failed in the past.  We can all bring up examples of each in an attempt to support our argument.  I think Churchill said it best:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

That is true in any revolt as well.  I have no clue what is going to happen. In all likelyhood nothing will.  But I want to be prepared to defend myself and mine as best I can in any circumstance.

Nobody seems to be able to argue with the fact that statistics show a legally armed populace decreases violent crime.  The statistics I presented about this prove the point.   As far as a right to defend one's self, I don't want to get into a theological discussion.  I shouldn't have used the term "God-given".  Everyone is born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Anyone who is being deprived, or is in danger of being deprived of those rights has the right to defend them.

If a mugger jumped you with a knife with the intent of stabbing you no matter what, he's not going to stand in front of you and ask for your wallet.  He'll stab you before you know he's there and he'll take your wallet.  If he asks for wallet, can you guarantee you'll be able to draw, cock and point your weapon before he can close the ten foot distance between you?  When you are zipped up in your winter coat how long does it take you to reach it?  If you do anything other than reach for your back pocket and he's the type that might stab, he's going to attack.  And if he has a gun, you don't even have the time it takes to cover ten feet.

There is something called an OODA loop that needs to be cycled through before any actions can be taken.  It stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.  The whole thing takes about two seconds.  It can be reset by changing circumstances, but when something new is observed the cycle resets.  This is how flashbangs work.  It stops the first two parts of the OODA loop.  If you're blind and can't hear you can't observe or orient yourself, so you can't act.
If I have observed an attacker has a knife, oriented myself, and decided I am going to use deadly force, then draw a handgun the attacker is about 1.5 seconds behind me in the OODA loop because he just observed my action.  This means I have 1.5 seconds from acting to stop the attack before the attacker can act.  I don't want to dive into the mechanics of firearms usage too deeply,  but this is plenty of time if one is familiar with their firearm.

To demonstrate the OODA loop have someone put their finger to your head as though it's a gun.  Tell them to say bang as soon as they think you're going to take the "gun" from them.  Then grab their hand and move it away from your head.  You will be able to do it 100% of the time.

Also, I feel the need to point out when I referred to the unarmed populace as sheep I did not mean followers.  I meant prey for wolves.  I still think the analogy is apt.  It goes even farther because sheep don't know they need to be protected (not that I'm willing to do it) and they have a hard time telling the wolves from the sheepdogs.  I'm cool with that.  I hear it all the time, not only on this forum.  It's part of the decision I made to not ever be a victim.

I think overall I have to cry uncle.  I've been losing sleep over this discussion, and It's pretty clear nobody is changing anyone's mind.  I just want to close with this.  Everyone has a right to defend themselves from agressors and protect their rights.  It's not easy to stand up and fight, and not everyone is going to do it.  That is fine.  Just don't look down on me because I'm willing to meet savagery with savagery in order to live peacefully, and don't remove my right to protect myself.

[Simon]

Nobody seems to be able to argue with the fact that statistics show a legally armed populace decreases violent crime.  The statistics I presented about this prove the point.   As far as a right to defend one's self, I don't want to get into a theological discussion.  I shouldn't have used the term "God-given".  Everyone is born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Anyone who is being deprived, or is in danger of being deprived of those rights has the right to defend them.

The main reason I haven't disagreed with you on this Chodon, is that actually I agree with you...  I do think that the threat of a legally armed home-owners is likely to be a disincentive to burglary (assuming that there are a large enough number of armed home-owners for it to be a going concern for the burglar), and that legally armed concealed-carriers would be a disincentive to mugging (under the same circumstances).  Much like I think that the threat of Capital Punishment is probably a disincentive among organised criminals (if you've got execution hanging over your head, your career choices as a rational mafioso will probably be affected).  I think it would be pretty ridiculous to say otherwise.

The problem is that if you maximise this disincentive (everyone in society is armed, and every crime is responded to with execution) you still aren't going to eliminate crime totally, and I'm not sure how big the total effect would be.  Because there are numerous, numerous disincentives to criminal activity that work - widespread public CCTV has proved very effective in the UK in reducing public violent crime, despite it being hideously illiberal and making me come out in a cold sweat when I even think about it, an efficient police service is a disincentive to all crimes, the nature of criminal detention, widespread employment accompanied with the prospect of a ruined employment record, and so on...  but even with a perfect disincentive, it's effectiveness is linked to 1) how rational the person is 2) how keen/desperate the person is, 3) the social/situational implications (e.g. things like gang-culture, or finding yourself in a tight spot).  Britain used to have both concealed weapons and capital punishment, but the removal of them hasn't caused the place to devolve into chaos, and other factors can be used to reduce crime.  If you've got poverty and wealth, you are going to get violent, low-brow, economic crime whatever disincentives you have in place.

With the effect of a blackmarket in guns taken into account, I'd reckon that the evils of armed criminals, and the accidental/anger caused effects of ubiquitous guns, outweigh the benefits of a (might I suggest marginal?) disincentive, as it currently is...  Just like I'd say that capital punishment is so morally wrong you should depend on other disincentives (but please, no one follow up the fire I just lighted by mentioning that... we all know what we think).  I'm quite happy having to deal with unarmed criminals with more physical means.  And I have... And I probably will have to again.

-addendum-

Writing this I am reminded of Primo Levi's If This Is A Man... And I'm self-indulgent enough to mention it. It's his autobiographical book about his experiences in Auschwitz.  There's a big, and utterly fascinating, section in that book about the criminal economy within the camp.  It was a society where food was distributed with less than was required for survival (bread was the common currency of the camp), and where all infractions were met with summary execution.  This is pretty much the idealised worst case scenario of both incentive to commit crime (starvation otherwise) and disincentive (execution if caught).  Suffice to say, the entire society of the camp revolved around the black market.

I think overall I have to cry uncle.  I've been losing sleep over this discussion, and It's pretty clear nobody is changing anyone's mind.  I just want to close with this.  Everyone has a right to defend themselves from agressors and protect their rights.  It's not easy to stand up and fight, and not everyone is going to do it.  That is fine.  Just don't look down on me because I'm willing to meet savagery with savagery in order to live peacefully, and don't remove my right to protect myself.

This makes me sad, I've enjoyed discussing this with you...

[Russell Nash]

If a mugger jumped you with a knife with the intent of stabbing you no matter what, he's not going to stand in front of you and ask for your wallet.  He'll stab you before you know he's there and he'll take your wallet.  If he asks for wallet, can you guarantee you'll be able to draw, cock and point your weapon before he can close the ten foot distance between you?  When you are zipped up in your winter coat how long does it take you to reach it?  If you do anything other than reach for your back pocket and he's the type that might stab, he's going to attack.  And if he has a gun, you don't even have the time it takes to cover ten feet.

If I have observed an attacker has a knife, oriented myself, and decided I am going to use deadly force, then draw a handgun the attacker is about 1.5 seconds behind me in the OODA loop because he just observed my action.  This means I have 1.5 seconds from acting to stop the attack before the attacker can act.  I don't want to dive into the mechanics of firearms usage too deeply,  but this is plenty of time if one is familiar with their firearm.

So you carry your gun in a holster on your hip everywhere you go.  Otherwise you could never get it in 1.5 sec.  You can not unzip a jacket and get to a shoulder holster in less time than it takes to get stabbed or shot.  Try it with your brother and get back to us.

[Anarkey]

First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you.

Dude, for someone who is the first in any argument to complain: "ad hominem! that's beneath you!" you sure do feel free to pile the insults on.  I'm sure it's water off a duck's back to Simon, but since it lowers the overall level of discourse, I'm asking you to cut it out.

Our heritage is being a rebel colony.  Our heritage is being pioneers.

Ditto everything Simon said about national myth making, because he said it better than I could.  Though I'm waiting with bated breath for you to dust up and trot out Horatio Alger's mythology next. 

Our heritage is also genocide of indigenous peoples, ecological devastation, and wealth built on slavery.  You going to stand up and trumpet those ideals also?  They're integral to our wonderful pioneerness, if nothing else.  Seriously, nothing in our national past is an unalloyed glorious good, because hello, human beings involved.  And you know?  It's not bad to admit it.  I can hold the view that our past is tainted, even down to the founding fathers, and still be impressed by the constitution and the bill of rights.  I don't have to renounce my faith in my country when I let go of the immature notion that it is (or was, at some earlier golden time) perfect in every way, sacred in every way, better in every way.  In fact, my faith in my country can be much stronger, because it doesn't require a false image of perfection to work.  This, in fact, is how I still tolerate calling myself an American when my nation has become a bully torturer state which I find deeply abhorrent.

Whoops, sidetracked.  Let's narrow that down to: examining held notions = good, and move on.

Fourth: This idea that you have to control the capital is ridiculous.

Just claiming ridiculousness in a vacuum, without proof, does not make it so (except perhaps to you).  You have not presented a counter-argument.  To control the nation, you must control the capital.  This is basic political theory, it is not something Simon and I made up to vex you. 

  I live 1000 miles from Washington DC.  If a tyrant came to power in Washington, we in Illinois could resist and hold our own quite well, if we were armed and organized, that is.  Illinois could be entirely self-sufficient, if it came down to it, as could a hundred other regions of America.

Hmmmm, I see what you mean.  We're at a semantic difference here.  What you're describing, I would not call resistance, rebellion or uprising.  It's not an attempt to wrest back the government, but to establish your own area of control.  What you're describing here is a situation where the federal and state governments have failed (or cannot exert control, for whatever reason), and every area must govern itself or be ungoverned.  I can conceive of such a scenario.  But what you're talking about, defending your compound or whatever and "holding your own" is not revolution.  It's warlordism.  I am not a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe anything in the constitution or the various and sundry state and local regulations (castle laws notwithstanding) enshrine your right to become a warlord if the nation goes to hell in a handbasket. 

  The idea that I have to bow to whoever rules in Washington is just more of that acquiescent helplessness I was talking about earlier.  If the people have power, then they have the option to give their capital the finger if they choose.  That's the whole point!!

You bow to these rulers every day.  You pay taxes.  You own guns because they let you (and in fact, fear a day might come when they might pass a law to not let you, or you wouldn't be in this thread, arguing so vociferously).  You ride on the right side of the road.  You vote.  You take every stupid test they require of you to get the little license that lets you drive, as often as they demand.  You pay parking tickets if they issue them to you.  You even get insurance on your home and car, because they demand it.  What exactly do you think you're doing if not bowing?

You think you can secede, but you haven't actually tried it, and so far all American secessions, big and small, violent and non-violent, have failed.  To the best of my knowledge (and I'd be happy to be told of an exception) the United States has never given up any territory it has annexed, not even to its angry citizens.  So while I do enjoy your romantic view that your gun is all that stands between you and "bowing down", I don't believe it.  If the state bellies up and you decide to become your own warlord?  Well, that's on you, but I think Simon's coining of the term savage remains apt under those circumstances.

The goal and purpose of gun ownership is ultimately not to reduce overall death rates.  It is ensure freedom by keeping power in the hands of citizens.  "Give me liberty or give me death" is not just a slogan: Some of us take it seriously. 

You realize, surely, that "Give me liberty or give me death" means I'd rather die than not be free, not I'd rather shoot people than not be free? 

But still, I do agree with you...  While I'm a big fan of Gandhi he was a canny operator, and one should never forget he was a trained lawyer.  There is a famous essay of his called "If I were A Czech" about how the people of Czechoslovakia should resist Hitler using satyagraha, a farcically naive viewpoint from a man who wasn't in the least bit naive.

Definitely with you on this, Simon.  In fact the other names that have risen repeatedly in this thread: Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela are also excellent examples of quite canny and stunningly charismatic figures.  MLK, unfortunately, was not canny enough to keep from getting himself assassinated, but the revolution went on without him, so it counts as a success in the wider social sense.  In fact, I'd say more important to revolution than guns (or bombs, and I agree that bombs are the more useful) is canny and charismatic leadership, such as the examples we have given in this thread.

So, in short, my plan for revolution is this: everyone run out and learn how to make speeches!  Join your local debate club!  Practice in front of a mirror! 

Lastly, Chodon, about people not changing their minds.  I once believed that an armed populace might be of benefit against an oppressive government.  I have made many of the same arguments you have made in this discourse (in fact, I found it quite nostalgic on some level).  It was not a conversation like this one that changed my mind, I'll admit, but I did change my mind.  Primarily, I realized that taking up arms against anyone, even an oppressive government, is diametrically opposed to my religious beliefs and that it was a reactionary position, based on the fear of my own prior experiences.  Obviously this is a personal position, not one that necessarily translates to anyone else, and I haven't addressed any of my arguments to the fundamental reasons why Anarkey doesn't believe in arming herself against the government.  I tried for many years to rationalize and weasel my way around non-violence as a necessary personal philosophy, mostly by way of Liberation Theology (one of my favorite subjects) and Bonhoeffer, but in the end it's incontrovertible.  My understanding of my religion does not allow for the taking up of arms against other human beings. 

These conversations are worth having, in my opinion, even if no one changes their mind about anything right this second.  Thank you, Chodon, for being willing to have it.  It takes a lot of mental energy and focus, and I accept that after a while, one has to back off.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Illinois is not self-sufficient.  If you did have all of Illinois, the government would just cut you off and starve you out.  Blow up all road connections, cut power, cut phones, cut all shipments, freeze all bank accounts.

Okay, I haven't finished reading everything, but I've just got to stop and respond to this.

Russell, this is a statement of such ignorance that is makes me hesitate to take anything else you say seriously.  Illinois could easily be self-sufficient.  Cut us off?  From what?  Illinois grows enough food to feed itself many times over.  Illinois has ample reserves of coal and oil (although much of it is currently untapped).  Illinois has facilities to produce steel, fabric, plastic, medicine, machinery, etc.  Illinois makes its own electricity, has it's own communication and highway systems, and has plenty of water.  We have 13 million people (almost twice as many as Switzerland) in whom can be found expertise in absolutely anything to solve any problems that might arise.

I can't believe you know so little about the geography of the United States that you would even think of something as silly as "cutting us off and starving us out."  If the entire rest of the world were to simply vanish tomorrow, the people of Illinois would be able to survive, and do so without privation.  The same applies to most–if not every–one of our 50 states.

Do you really not understand that or were you just typing off the cuff and not thinking?


Cut us off!

Continuing to read...

[Mr. Tweedy]

First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you.

Dude, for someone who is the first in any argument to complain: "ad hominem! that's beneath you!" you sure do feel free to pile the insults on.  I'm sure it's water off a duck's back to Simon, but since it lowers the overall level of discourse, I'm asking you to cut it out.

First, That is not an ad hominem attack.  I am not saying that his argument is wrong because he is a duplicitous person, I am saying his argument is duplicitous.  I find Simon's opinions to be based upon prejudice which leads him to judge motives and values according to an unfair double standard.  When an argument purports to be based on reason and experience while appealing to nothing (as it seems to me) but ethnocentric preconception, I think it's fair to call that duplicity.  Whether Simon himself is a duplicitous person, I can't say because I don't know anything about him.  I suspect he is not: My impression is that he is probably honest, but his person honesty does not redeem his argument.

An ad hominem attack would be Simon is duplicitous, so you can't believe anything he says.  If you will notice my phrasing: "Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you."  I am assuming that he is unaware of the nature of his argument and trying to call his attention to it.  I was giving the benefit of the doubt, even if I was admittedly a little aggressive in my phrasing.

Not guilty, thank you very much.

Secondly, my "that's beneath you" earlier in this thread was aimed at eytanz alone because of something specific which he said (something I misinterpreted, as it happens).  For you to rip that out of context and wave it in my face demonstrates nothing other than that you like to rip things out of context.

Sigh...  I must go to bed now.

[Simon]

First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you.

Dude, for someone who is the first in any argument to complain: "ad hominem! that's beneath you!" you sure do feel free to pile the insults on.  I'm sure it's water off a duck's back to Simon, but since it lowers the overall level of discourse, I'm asking you to cut it out.

First, That is not an ad hominem attack.  I am not saying that his argument is wrong because he is a duplicitous person, I am saying his argument is duplicitous.  I find Simon's opinions to be based upon prejudice which leads him to judge motives and values according to an unfair double standard.  When an argument purports to be based on reason and experience while appealing to nothing (as it seems to me) but ethnocentric preconception, I think it's fair to call that duplicity.  Whether Simon himself is a duplicitous person, I can't say because I don't know anything about him.  I suspect he is not: My impression is that he is probably honest, but his person honesty does not redeem his argument.

An ad hominem attack would be Simon is duplicitous, so you can't believe anything he says.  If you will notice my phrasing: "Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you."  I am assuming that he is unaware of the nature of his argument and trying to call his attention to it.  I was giving the benefit of the doubt, even if I was admittedly a little aggressive in my phrasing.

Not guilty, thank you very much.

Secondly, my "that's beneath you" earlier in this thread was aimed at eytanz alone because of something specific which he said (something I misinterpreted, as it happens).  For you to rip that out of context and wave it in my face demonstrates nothing other than that you like to rip things out of context.

Sigh...  I must go to bed now.

Hmm..  I think you both have something of a point...  Anarkey is certainly right that you're undermining this discussion by throwing loaded expressions like "prejudice" and "duplicity" around, and you seem convinced that my characterisation of Switzerland and Crete as tangibly different to the US is a double standard (I do have family in the US, I'm not totally ill-educated), and are trying to undermine my whole argument with it.  It's a pity that, rather than dwelling on this, you didn't take on some of the other page of argument since your last post.

You're wrong Tweedy, go to these countries...  Switzerland's weapons culture is demonstrably different from the US, I thought I'd addressed this in my last post.  There is no common ground between semi-automatics held by reservists on government order, and a gun-club-culture.  The Cretan system isn't particularly healthy either, and I think they only just get away with it because its a small, wealthy, island with extremely low "blue collar crime" (and pretty high mafioso crime).  Sicily is one of the safest places in Italy, but I wouldn't recommend anyone try to duplicate the reason for their low crime statistics.

My beef with American gun culture doesn't apply to either of these, which is basically - armed, blue collar, criminals, and the paranoia among the middle classes that comes about because of their existence .  It is these that encourage your attitude of "protection" for both home defence and mugging-defence, and it is these that have caused the escalation so that you, and Chodon, feel that you need weapons to protect you from them.  Blue collar criminals do not scare me, they're mostly idiots and they're likely to be unarmed - even in a place as nasty as my neighbourhood of North London.

But surely, surely, you can see a difference between wealthy, low crime, countries where people keep rifles for target shooting, rabbit hunting, and to defend their Marijuana crops... And the attitude of:

For the record: I live in a quite, middle-class neighborhood in the good part of town.  Earlier this year a police car chase ended, literally, within ten feet of my front door.  The suspect fled and ran about half a mile down the street, where he started shooting at the cops before they returned fire and shot him dead.  Turns out he was a drug dealer who was carrying the gun illegally.  The marks his car left in my front yard are still visible.  He ran down the street, but he could just as easy have ran into my house, where my family would have made convenient hostages.

This incident served to reinforce my views on gun ownership.

When I use the word Barbarism, I'm talking about the paranoid, escalating culture of gun owners as protection (both for the criminals and for the homeowners).  This tangibly, and demonstrably exists in parts of the United States, and does NOT exist in Switzerland or Crete.  I am not claiming Americans are barbarians...  I am claiming that the gun culture common in the united states (and specifically urban and suburban areas) is barbaric.

The criminal you spoke of was, as I said, a Barbarian...

On the other hand, looking back you've been nailing me with personal attacks since the beginning of this thread when you accused me of "talking out both sides of my mouth" after you appeared to misunderstand the meaning of the term American Exceptionalism.  What's up with that, Mr Tweedy?

So please, can we leave accusations of prejudice and ethnocentric preconception at home, along with discussion about me in third person.  They might be considered, well, rude...

[Anarkey]

First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you.

Dude, for someone who is the first in any argument to complain: "ad hominem! that's beneath you!" you sure do feel free to pile the insults on.  I'm sure it's water off a duck's back to Simon, but since it lowers the overall level of discourse, I'm asking you to cut it out.

First, That is not an ad hominem attack.  I am not saying that his argument is wrong because he is a duplicitous person, I am saying his argument is duplicitous.  I find Simon's opinions to be based upon prejudice which leads him to judge motives and values according to an unfair double standard.  When an argument purports to be based on reason and experience while appealing to nothing (as it seems to me) but ethnocentric preconception, I think it's fair to call that duplicity.  Whether Simon himself is a duplicitous person, I can't say because I don't know anything about him.  I suspect he is not: My impression is that he is probably honest, but his person honesty does not redeem his argument.

Oh for heaven's sake, have I got to break this down even further? 

Fine.  "Your duplicity".  Your: belonging to you.  Duplicity: deceitfulness.

You called him a liar.  I believe you meant it, too (since you said it twice, but I was going to forgo mentioning the "talking out both sides of your mouth" incident the first time around in an attempt to be gentle).  It's possible I'm wrong, and you just phrased it poorly.  That happens too. 

"Your duplicity" is not about his argument.  It's about him. 

Even if it were about his argument, as you claim, whether his argument is duplicitous or not has no bearing on whether the argument is true or not.  Hypocrisy, if it were even true that Simon was being hypocritical, is a fallacious counter to an argument.  It falls under "irrelevant conclusion".  It's an ad hominem attack.

Seriously.

I asked you to cool it with the ad hominem, but your response makes it obvious you aren't willing to.  Your weaseling about whether it was him or his argument is painful to watch.  If something is observed to be insulting, whether by the party being insulted or some bystander, it is insulting.  You don't randomly get to decide it's not insulting just because it came out of your mouth.

Now maybe you didn't mean it, but since you feel obligated to defend it, I'm guessing you did.

Russell, you want to know why I participate less in the forums?  This bullshit, right here. 

Ad hominem's left to stand, and calling someone on their boorish behavior not eliciting the civil, 'ok, my bad, let me try a different tact' but this long-winded explanation about why it's ok to be a dick.

I am so done here.

P.S.
Sorry about using you as a third person example, Simon.  I know you can well and truly speak for yourself, but this is a perfect object lesson on why I find debate here interminably frustrating.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Czhorat: You are absolutely correct in saying that everything we do effects everyone else, but that does not negate my argument.  As a matter of personal liberty, what you can do, I desire no restriction on you.  I want you to be allowed to behave as you choose according to your own reasoning and values.  You do not extend that same respect to me.  You want to prevent me from behaving as I choose according to my reasoning and my values.  Your theory that doing so will make us all a little safer does not negate this difference in our viewpoints.

I am not suggesting that guns create freedom or peace.  Eytanz’s Israeli example illustrates that this is not the case.  I am saying that an armed populace is indispensable to preserving freedom where it exists and can be very helpful in creating it.  When, as in Palestine, the other necessary ingredients for freedom are absent, adding guns to the mix will do no good.  I am not saying guns of themselves are good or result in any sort of positive outcome.  I am saying that guns in hands of level-headed people who love freedom are good.  Part of the philosophy of gun ownership, as Chodon has tried and tried to point out, is to be that kind of person and teach others to be as well.

Your point about Canada and Europe not being police states as of 2007 is fairly moot.  Canada would have a very hard time becoming a police state without US complicity, and many of the European states haven’t existed in their current forms for even 100 years.  Add to that the fact that up to a generation ago, there was a Cold War keeping everyone on their toes.  The point is that there is nothing stopping these places from becoming police states.  (And, frankly, a lot Europe is too close now for my peace of mind.)

Simon: As much as I trust that you are earnest, I simply cannot make any sense of your arguments.  You say that I have barbarians living in my town but that my desire to defend myself from them is paranoia.  You claim that America’s disproportionate love of guns is due to unique qualities of the American mentality, but you insist that European solutions would work here because we’re all the same.  You say that you have been assaulted by strangers six times but insist that your country is safer than mine.  You say you are not prejudiced but your arguments seem to depend primarily on the idea that Europeans are inherently more civil than Americans.

I apologize if my use any certain term came across as personal defamation.  It’s just that all of your arguments seem... um... insert-term-that-means-simultaneously-making-two-claims-that-contradict-each-other-but-doesn’t-sound-like-an-insult.

There is one thing you have clearly shown me, and that is that you do not understand America.  For you to dismiss the significance of the Revolution to America as equal to the memory of ancient Athens to Greece or of the Magna Carta to England shows a complete failure to grasp what and why America is, as well as being factually inaccurate.

The only conclusion I can draw from all that you’ve said so far is this: America is a mystery to you.  (Don’t feel bad, America is a mystery to many Americans too.)

Russell: You point out that my talk of citizens resisting tyranny is largely bluster without an organized militia.  I concede that there is truth in this, but it is a not a reason to take guns away.  If we are disorganized, then the solution is to become organized.  Education in America sucks, and I think some basic knowledge of warfare is one of the many, many ways it could be improved.

But even without formal organization, individuals who are competent with and in possession of weapons would be a hell of a lot better than nothing.  Guerrilla warfare has been shown to be effective in many times and places.  You also discount the ability of neighbors who know and love each other to band together spontaneously, which is something that Americans are famously good at.

While it would be better if there were more formal organization, the lack of it does not make weapons useless and it is certainly not a reason to take them away.

You (and others) also fail to take into account the unique cultural and logistical situations in America that would make revolution here different from anywhere else in the world.  This is not Serbia.  This is not India.  This is America, and that does make a difference, on many levels.  (Even if only because of geography, it would make a difference.)

Everyone: It seems to me that all of the anti-gun arguments here essentially come down to assumptions about worst-case-scenarios.

It is assumed that the thug will get the drop on Chodon, and that if Chodon does get a shot off, he will miss and hit a bystander.  It is assumed that the oppressive government will resort to nuclear force.  It is assumed the freedom fighters will be a small minority.  It is assumed that they will be unable to organize.  It is assumed that being armed will make citizens thoughtless and rash in their use of violence. It is assumed that only the most paranoid individuals will have guns. Worst and most unfairly, it is assumed that in an anarchic situation my neighbor will turn on me rather than help me.  (I don’t know what kind of neighbors you all have, but I would expect my neighbors to do everything in their power to help me survive in such a situation, as I would most certainly do for them.  My neighbors are not an obstacle to my survival: They are my most important asset.)

I do not make assumptions like this.  I do not know what the future holds, I do not know what situations I might find myself in and I do not know what the best course of action might be in those situations.  I do not know whether or not my gun will be useful.  The future is fluid, and so I think it wise to be as prepared as possible for any eventuality.  Whatever else any of you may argue, you cannot claim that giving up my gun will make me more prepared for or increase my chances of doing good in any situation.  Giving up my gun has the singular effect of limiting my options.

When it comes down to it, a weapon is power, and who you think should have weapons is determined by who you think should have the final say.  This is a moral and philosophical point that has nothing to do with statistics.  I believes that power comes from and ultimately should rest with the common person.  I have no faith in the nebulous abstraction of “society,” which has proven so horribly evil so many times in the last century.  I have faith in myself, in my family, in my friends and–although with frequent and dire doubts–I have faith in the people of the United States.  We are the ones I want wielding power.  If the price of keeping power in the hands of individuals is a higher murder rate, then I am willing to pay that price.  Freedom is never free.  (Although, as Chodon so well pointed out, guns do not equal murder.  I don’t recall any refutation of his statistics.)

If you can understand that last paragraph, Simon, it might help you understand why the American Revolution remains such a significant event.

Chodon: Your guns are a comfort to me.  Thank you.

And that, I think, is my final word on this topic.  I’ve proved to a monstrous hypocrite with such statements in the past, but as of now my plan is to drop it.  I’ve found this conversation enlightening and, as usual, feel that I’m taking valuable insights away from it.  Thanks to everybody.

[eytanz]

insert-term-that-means-simultaneously-making-two-claims-that-contradict-each-other-but-doesn’t-sound-like-an-insult.

I find "contradictory" and "inconsistent" to do the job relatively well.

[Czhorat]

Czhorat: You are absolutely correct in saying that everything we do effects everyone else, but that does not negate my argument.  As a matter of personal liberty, what you can do, I desire no restriction on you.  I want you to be allowed to behave as you choose according to your own reasoning and values.  You do not extend that same respect to me.  You want to prevent me from behaving as I choose according to my reasoning and my values.  Your theory that doing so will make us all a little safer does not negate this difference in our viewpoints.

I'll note that you completely ignored my argument in favor of making vague noises about your freedom. I'll repeat: your freedom to own a gun impacts my personal safety. Do you disagree that this should ever be a consideration or would you be willing to restrict, for example, someone's right to operate a chemical plant next door to you? After all, he's giving you the right to not operate one. You're the one assaulting his freedom.

I am not suggesting that guns create freedom or peace.  Eytanz’s Israeli example illustrates that this is not the case. I am saying that an armed populace is indispensable to preserving freedom where it exists and can be very helpful in creating it. When, as in Palestine, the other necessary ingredients for freedom are absent, adding guns to the mix will do no good.  I am not saying guns of themselves are good or result in any sort of positive outcome.  I am saying that guns in hands of level-headed people who love freedom are good.  Part of the philosophy of gun ownership, as Chodon has tried and tried to point out, is to be that kind of person and teach others to be as well.

And many other people here are saying that this is false. That allowing easy access to firearms demonstrably increases the availability of deadly force to those who would use it irresponsibly. You've ignored this point as it doesn't fit with your ideology.

Your point about Canada and Europe not being police states as of 2007 is fairly moot.  Canada would have a very hard time becoming a police state without US complicity, and many of the European states haven’t existed in their current forms for even 100 years.  Add to that the fact that up to a generation ago, there was a Cold War keeping everyone on their toes.  The point is that there is nothing stopping these places from becoming police states.  (And, frankly, a lot Europe is too close now for my peace of mind.)

Huh? With the exception of Germany all of Western Europe has been pretty much fixed for quite a bit longer than the United States has. Your discounting England why? I'd also be curious to know why you think Canada would require "US complicity" to become a police state.

Everyone: It seems to me that all of the anti-gun arguments here essentially come down to assumptions about worst-case-scenarios.

I had to read this sentence three times to make sure I didn't misread it. You and Chodon are saying that you want guns so you can overthrow the government when it becomes a police state and you accuse others of relying on worst-case scenarios? I'm not even sure how to react.

It is assumed that the thug will get the drop on Chodon, and that if Chodon does get a shot off, he will miss and hit a bystander.  It is assumed that the oppressive government will resort to nuclear force.  It is assumed the freedom fighters will be a small minority.  It is assumed that they will be unable to organize.  It is assumed that being armed will make citizens thoughtless and rash in their use of violence. It is assumed that only the most paranoid individuals will have guns. Worst and most unfairly, it is assumed that in an anarchic situation my neighbor will turn on me rather than help me.  (I don’t know what kind of neighbors you all have, but I would expect my neighbors to do everything in their power to help me survive in such a situation, as I would most certainly do for them.  My neighbors are not an obstacle to my survival: They are my most important asset.)

I make no such assumptions. I assume that guns available legally will become an easy source of weapons for a black market. This is already happening. I assume that people will get careless and leave their guns where kids can find them and accidentally shoot themselves. This already happens. I assume that police forces will constantly have to up-arm to keep up with increasingly heavily armed criminals, creating more deadly police shootouts and more deadly crossfires. This already happens. I assume nothing, but observe much.

When it comes down to it, a weapon is power, and who you think should have weapons is determined by who you think should have the final say.  This is a moral and philosophical point that has nothing to do with statistics.  I believes that power comes from and ultimately should rest with the common person.  I have no faith in the nebulous abstraction of “society,” which has proven so horribly evil so many times in the last century.  I have faith in myself, in my family, in my friends and–although with frequent and dire doubts–I have faith in the people of the United States.  We are the ones I want wielding power.  If the price of keeping power in the hands of individuals is a higher murder rate, then I am willing to pay that price.  Freedom is never free.  (Although, as Chodon so well pointed out, guns do not equal murder.  I don’t recall any refutation of his statistics.)

The common person includes you and Chodon. It also includes criminals, thieves, racialist groups, anarchists, people opposed to any kind of government regulations, and radical true believers on all sides of all causes. I don't think that you, Mr. Tweedy, are a danger to me. I think that the unfettered availability of deadly force to any citizen who asks for it is a danger to myself, my family, and to society as a whole. You want to protect your family by personally wielding deadly force. I want to protect my family and everyone else's by limiting the availability of deadly force to the police and the military. Freedom is never free, but nor is it absolute.

[Russell Nash]

You (and others) also fail to take into account the unique cultural and logistical situations in America that would make revolution here different from anywhere else in the world.  This is not Serbia.  This is not India.  This is America, and that does make a difference, on many levels.  (Even if only because of geography, it would make a difference.)

Mr. Tweedy you continue to confuse revolution with secession. 

This continuing belief that America is unique is why the country is in such a mess at the moment.  "America is the best at everything and can do what it wants" is why we're stuck in Iraq, the dollar has plumetted, and why we've completely lost out standing in the world.  You can say we're unique, but only in the same way most countries are unique.

Everyone: It seems to me that all of the anti-gun arguments here essentially come down to assumptions about worst-case-scenarios.

The majority of your arguement is about what happens when the government collapses.  You accuse us of worst case scenarios??

The American Revolution connection is preposterious and I say this as an American who understands the country.  That is a last ditch effort to avoid the real discussion.  Nobody brought that up as a reason to buy a gun until the NRA first proposed it.  The real reasons are: Hunting, sport, defense, collecting, and crime. 

Hunting:  Well unless we really re-introduce natural predators.  Most of the legitimately hunted animals in the US would overpopulate and then starve and then repaet the cycle.  We need hunters.  (I said legitimate.  I'm all for outlawing these hunting farms like the ones Cheney goes too.  They're for pussies.)

Sport:  This is why I would get one if I could.  I like sqeezing off a few rounds.  I've never shot a .45, but man do I want a 1911.

Defense:  I find carrying one with you to be impractical.  As I argued with Chodon, if I have my coat and gloves on in a normal way for winter, I can't draw a gun to defend myself without notice.  In a place where I have notice I defend my family and myself far better by finding a way out.
 
There have been situations where it would have been better if someone had a gun to stop the shooter, but I have a better chance of shot by a police officer than by one of these shooters. 

A side issue on these shooters.  Normally they're committing suicide and just trying to take as many people as possible with them.  They wouldn't be dissuaded by the presence of citizens with guns.  The professional killers don't run amok.  They're there to do a specific job: kill a target, rob the bank, etc..  If you're not the target, the safest thing to do is stay out of the way and don't watch.  I hate to use fiction as an example, but in Serenity Zoe said, "the definition of hero is somebody who gets other people killed."

For home defense I have a far better weapon and it's one the kids can play with.  A forty pound dog with a good bark and an excellent snarl.  A far lower percentage of homes with dogs are ever broken into.  The robber doesn't want to have to deal with a possibly dangerous animal and the owners are now awake.  Your gun doesn't do you any good if you're asleep.  Even if I did have the 1911, it wouldn't be anywhere near my bedroom.  It would be unloaded in a safe in my office.  The dog and my steel baton are all I need.

Collecting:  If it floats your boat, fine.  Store them in a locked case with security glass and remove the firing pins.

Crime:  We all get it.

My point which I'm getting to in a long about manner is that there are a shit load of legitimate reasons to have guns, but they are extremely dangerous when in the wrong hands.

You guys have called us defeatist for saying we don't think you can stage an armed insurrection in the US, but your answer to criminals with guns is "there's just too many." 

The article I posted at the very beginning said most guns used in crime come from straw purchases.  This means that guns used in crimes are not being used by thier proper owners.  This means that most guns used in crimes are relatively new (the article says IIRC that over half of these straw-purchased guns were less than five years old when they were recovered by police).  Wouldn't really going after these people be a good place to start?  To start getting the guns out of the hands of the most dangerous wouldn't that help?  The muggers and the home thieves are the most dangerous to us personally.  If we could just make the guns a little harder to get a little more expensive for them, wouldn't that cut down on the numbers?

[Russell Nash]

Illinois is not self-sufficient.  If you did have all of Illinois, the government would just cut you off and starve you out.  Blow up all road connections, cut power, cut phones, cut all shipments, freeze all bank accounts.

Okay, I haven't finished reading everything, but I've just got to stop and respond to this.

Russell, this is a statement of such ignorance that is makes me hesitate to take anything else you say seriously.  Illinois could easily be self-sufficient.  Cut us off?  From what?  Illinois grows enough food to feed itself many times over.  Illinois has ample reserves of coal and oil (although much of it is currently untapped).  Illinois has facilities to produce steel, fabric, plastic, medicine, machinery, etc.  Illinois makes its own electricity, has it's own communication and highway systems, and has plenty of water.  We have 13 million people (almost twice as many as Switzerland) in whom can be found expertise in absolutely anything to solve any problems that might arise.

I can't believe you know so little about the geography of the United States that you would even think of something as silly as "cutting us off and starving us out."  If the entire rest of the world were to simply vanish tomorrow, the people of Illinois would be able to survive, and do so without privation.  The same applies to most–if not every–one of our 50 states.

Do you really not understand that or were you just typing off the cuff and not thinking?

image
Cut us off!

Continuing to read...

Not a single state or for that matter country is capable of being self-sufficient while maintaing a first-world lifestyle.

I won't get into modern manufactoring realities, but instead I'll point out raw resources.

Illinois has no Iron ore deposits therefore it has no future steel industry.

Illinois produces less than 900,000 barrels of oil a month.  A barrel is 42 gallons and yields 51% of that volume as gasoline.  Using your number of 13 million people that 1.4 gallons of gas per person per month.  That's 5.6 gallons a month for your family minus whatever the new government and industry needs.  In 2005 Illinois used 33.5 gallons per person per month.

Illinois produces no cotton or wool.  And you can't get the sheep or the seeds after we close the border.  That means you could only wear synthetic cloth.   Plus you can't import the seeds for large production of other foods so I hope you like corn and soy beans.

Illinois doesn't produce raw plastics.  So much for the synthetic cloth and any plastic manufacturing.

Illinois doesn't have silicon or copper deposits.  So much for any kind of electronics.

You could probably have a very nice industrial age life.

Sorry for the dose of reality. 

[Planish]

Canada would have a very hard time becoming a police state without US complicity, ...

What does that mean?
I can't say I agree or disagree, because I have no idea what you were trying to say.
The closest we've come to it in recent history is probably the October Crisis in 1970.

A few wikipedia quotes:

The size of the FLQ organization and the number of sympathizers in the public was not known. However, in its Manifesto, the FLQ terrorists stated:

     "In the coming year Bourassa [Provincial Premier Robert Bourassa] will have to face reality; 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized."

Given that declaration, along with seven years of bombings and the wording of their communiques throughout that time that strove to present an image of a powerful organization spread secretly throughout all sectors of society, the authorities took significant action.

When a CBC Radio reporter asked how far he was willing to go to stop the FLQ, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said, "Just watch me".

(FLQ = Front de libération du Québec)

Mixed reactions, from high fives to "WTF?".  A few days later...

In 1970, Quebec nationalists and FLQ members kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and Quebec provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, who was later murdered. What is now referred to as the October Crisis raised fears in Canada of a militant terrorist faction rising up against the government. At the request of the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and the government of the Province of Quebec, and in response to general threats and demands made by the FLQ, the federal Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau invoked the act. He did this so police had more power in arrest and detention, so they could find and stop the FLQ members. There was a large amount of concern about the act being invoked as it was a direct threat to civil liberties.

So, if our elected officials want to become leaders of a police state, they at least have the paperwork prepared.
All that was years before the FAC was instituted.

In 1977, Bill C-51 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FACs) for the acquisition (but not possession) of all firearms and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. FAC applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before being issued an FAC.

Debates about the usefulness of the much-deprecated gun registry program (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada ) never mention any notion of "an armed populace that can resist an oppressive state". It's usually urban anti-crime issues versus rural "it's just another tool" and "waste of tax-payers' money" issues.

On a less serious note, some "gun" owners have been registering their nail guns, staple guns, glue guns, hair dryers as a protest to the Registry, as the government has to process each application, regardless of the type of gun. Some people went as far as registering their children's cap guns.

Rather than rise in armed opposition, Canadians are far more likely to form a national party, like the Bloc Québécois

The Bloc Québécois (BQ) is a federal political party in Canada that defines itself as devoted to the promotion of sovereignty for Quebec. It holds as its goal the "defence of the interests of all Québécois in Ottawa"[citation needed] (notably by promoting, in the federal parliament, the consensus of the National Assembly of Quebec). As such, it contests elections only in constituencies in Quebec. It has very close relations with the Parti Québécois (PQ, whose members are known as "Péquistes"), the provincial party that advocates the secession or separation of Quebec from Canadian Confederation.

After the 2006 federal election, the BQ held 51 seats out of 308.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Russell, I didn't say Illinois would not suffer from being isolated or that we could maintain our cozy lobster-and-lattes lifestyles.  I said we could survive without privation (privation: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scare or lacking).  Illinois could endure a siege indefinitely.  None of your "dose of reality" has any effect on that statement.

Anyway...

[FNH]

Could you get rid of the guns in private ownership in the States?  I mean if the political will power was there.

You could melt down all of the guns that are currently legal.  Then obviously stop thier sale so that no more enter circulation.  Then in theory, every gun picked up by the police would reduce the number of illegals in circulation.

I imagine this would lead to a short period of chaos as some members of the criminal frat' go wild. I imagine this might call for the mobilisation of militia in some cases.

How long would it take for gun crime to go down...  Not long I imagine.

[eytanz]

Could you get rid of the guns in private ownership in the States?  I mean if the political will power was there.

Well, that's the crux of it. The political willpower isn't there. Chodon and Tweedy aren't a lunatic fringe - they may or may represent the majority opinion (I don't know), but they certainly represent a mainstream view.

While I certainly am not a fan of the culture of gun ownership in the US, I also think that it is not something that can be addressed directly. If it will ever change, it will change because the attitudes behind it will change. And I'm not referring to a so-called "macho posturing" attitude that was mentioned several times above; that's not the underlying cause for guns, and it isn't really a fair characteristic of any American I've met in my five years there, including those who were avid gun owners. Rather I'm referring to the (in my view) highly dysfunctional relationship between the US public and their government, which comes out pretty clearly in Tweedy's posts. But that's a different topic, and not one I'm too interested in arguing about at the moment.

[Russell Nash]

Russell, I didn't say Illinois would not suffer from being isolated or that we could maintain our cozy lobster-and-lattes lifestyles.  I said we could survive without privation (privation: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scare or lacking).  Illinois could endure a siege indefinitely.  None of your "dose of reality" has any effect on that statement.

Anyway...

With no manufacturing there would be no capability to replace parts at any major facility.  The only choice would be canabalism of parts.  This means a steady decline in power generation, fuel, transportation and farming.  Besides the lack of transportation and farming capability due to lack of diesel fuel just from not having any imports.  

Privation: a lack of the usual comforts or necessaries of life.  That doesn't describe what would happen after the total breakdown of capabilities and services?  You're looking at mass starvation within two years.

I'm sure they explained all of this to you when you studied graphic design.  When you go back to work after the holidays why don't you walk up to the economics writer and ask him how long you'd all last.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Mass starvation due to lack of tractor parts?  We have hands, man.  Granted, 1000 manual laborers couldn't grow crops with the same efficiency as 5 guys with tractors.  Total yields would be a tenth of what they are now, but, again, so what?  Illinois exports almost everything it grows.  Even if we could only grow crops with 5% of the current efficiency, that would still be plenty to feed 13 million people.

I maintain: Even if Illinois were completely cut off from all trade and communication right now, and the siege lasted 100 years, there is no logistical reason why even a single Illinois resident would have to starve.

If you want to define privation as having to build with brick instead of steel, having to eat corn at every meal, having to ride a bike instead of drive and not being able to download Escape Pod, then, yeah, we'd have to give up a lot of luxuries and simplify our lifestyles.  It wouldn't be fun.  But if you're talking about people dying for lack of food and shelter, then no, sorry.

[eytanz]

Tweedy - I'll take your word for how self-sufficient Illinois may be. But one thing that all your estimations seem to share is that the entire state will work in a unified fashi on. I find this unlikely - a tyrant would have a hard time arising in DC without at least some support among the people. I'd assume that a non-negligable percentage of DC loyalists will be found in Illinois. And an non-negligable percentage of people who may not like the Federal government, but dislike other group in Illinois even worse.

A self-sufficient group of 100, or maybe even 1000 can survive for a quite a while under siege. With 13 million, even if only 10% of them are Federalists, you have a civil war on your hand from inside. So, even if the Federal Government is not actively bombing you (which may complicate all your predictions, which seem to assume that the DC tyrant will just sit idly letting the free Republic of Illinois be), I think you may be facing a harder time than you are estimating.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Russell: Did you know that corn, is addition to corn-flakes, can also be used to make motor fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, and be burned for heat?  Great stuff, corn.

Eytanz: This is obviously an unrealistic scenario.  Russel asserted that the people of Illinois would starve if the borders were closed, and that's all I'm arguing against.   That it could never actually happen so cleanly and neatly, I have no doubt.

[Russell Nash]

Russell: Did you know that corn, is addition to corn-flakes, can also be used to make motor fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, and be burned for heat?  Great stuff, corn.

Eytanz: This is obviously an unrealistic scenario.  Russel asserted that the people of Illinois would starve if the borders were closed, and that's all I'm arguing against.   That it could never actually happen so cleanly and neatly, I have no doubt.

Mr.Tweedy, I'm sick and tired of being your research man.  It would amaze everyone here if you actually looked into something before you opened your mouth.

Commercial corn type number 3 (The kind ADM produces in Illinois) is inedible without being processed.  It is also a hybrid.  You cannot replant it each year without new seeds.  If you try, you get useless and in some cases poisonous corn.  Corn also needs more nitrogen based fertilizer than any other crop. 

Corn cannot be grown without an infrastructure of chemical plants, oil and natural gas production, refineries, seed production farms, and finally food processing.  See above posts for why you won't have that. 

I'll give you credit that Illinois is more capable than most places and with an open port on the lake could get everything it needs from Canada, but if that is blockaded you die.

Edit: Adding closing.

Even if your fantasy world could exist on corn, one bombing run of the ADM facility would destroy all seed production.  One fly over of herbicides would destroy the year's crop.  One bombing run of the fertilizer facility would destroy any chance of farming corn or soy.

[Thaurismunths]

Russell: Did you know that corn, is addition to corn-flakes, can also be used to make motor fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, and be burned for heat?  Great stuff, corn.

Eytanz: This is obviously an unrealistic scenario.  Russel asserted that the people of Illinois would starve if the borders were closed, and that's all I'm arguing against.   That it could never actually happen so cleanly and neatly, I have no doubt.

Mr.Tweedy, I'm sick and tired of being your research man.  It would amaze everyone here if you actually looked into something before you opened your mouth.

Commercial corn type number 3 (The kind ADM produces in Illinois) is inedible without being processed.  It is also a hybrid.  You cannot replant it each year without new seeds.  If you try, you get useless and in some cases poisonous corn.  Corn also needs more nitrogen based fertilizer than any other crop. 

Corn cannot be grown without an infrastructure of chemical plants, oil and natural gas production, refineries, seed production farms, and finally food processing.  See above posts for why you won't have that. 

I'll give you credit that Illinois is more capable than most places and with an open port on the lake could get everything it needs from Canada, but if that is blockaded you die.

I'm braking my moratorium on replying to you to back up Russell on this one.
Corn, as we grow it, is more tobacco and mold than maze (maze is another name for corn). F1 (first generation), or "mommy and daddy corn" is what you see in the fields, the F2 (second generation), or "baby corns" never gets planted because the genetics, or building instructions, won't hold up and you get nasty corn, poisonous corn, and some times not even corn. Farmers have tried to get out from under the thumb of mean old seed suppliers by planting the F2 themselves and have ended up poisoning their cattle or having fields of tobacco instead. That means that Illinois won't have corn seed to rely on for more than a year, and that's not good.
If you have internet access try googling it.
Secondly, type three isn't edible by humans. Not all corn is created equal. The corn you eat is called "sweet corn" and doesn't actually provide any nutritional value anyway. 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. Do you have more than one stomach? Does the rest of Illinois?
Where do corn flakes get made? Is the Kellogg corporation located in Illinois? No, no it isn't. It's in Kalamazoo Michigan. So where are these corn flakes coming from?