I stay out of prepper discussions for the most part, but one thing comes up every time there is a discussion about this that I would like to comment on.  Somehow, somewhere, a stereotype appeared that preppers are doom-and-gloom, fear-mongering people that waste their lives preparing for the catastrophic, end-of-the-world scenarios.  The word "prepper" brings up images of the person huddled in the corner of their basement listening to a crackling short-wave radio surrounded by their hoard, purposefully isolated from the rest of society.  Once that strawman is constructed, all the anti-prepper sentiment comes flooding out, and the two sides of the discussion stop listening to one another.  At that point there is very little to be gained from the discussions.  I don't know if anyone would argue that there are people like that involved with the prepper movement, but my contention is that they are a tiny, sometimes very vocal, fraction of the number of people involved with the idea of being prepared.  My own idea of a "prepper", and I have come to despise that term, is anyone that is smart enough to have some battery-powered lights, some water to drink, and something they can eat if their power goes out for three days.  This can be taken further, and in my own case it is.  I lived in the PNW years ago and an ice storm took my power, and therefore my heat, down for 5 days.  It wasn’t catastrophic, but it was certainly inconvenient.  Store shelves within easy driving distance were out of candles, battery-powered lanterns, batteries, propane heaters, bottles of propane and kerosene, and most all camping equipment within 12 hours or so of the power going out.  I decided I didn’t want to be scrounging things at the last minute, so I noted the things I needed that I didn’t have, and I stocked up.  I simply don’t understand people that don’t have at least a few days of the items they need if the power goes or there is a storm that takes a bunch of trees down and the road crews can’t get them cleared for some period of time.
Like I mentioned in a different thread about guns, preparing for events like this is not a fear-based activity, it is a comforting one.  It melds perfectly with orchards and gardening, and I get the same feelings of security from my gardens that I do from having shelves full of canned goods and stacks of warm clothing and blankets in my closet.  Have you ever looked down at the gas gauge in your car, realized it was nearly empty and the nearest gas station is 40 miles away?  There is an underlying feeling of anxiety that comes with looking down at the gauge every 30 seconds to make sure it hasn’t suddenly dropped more than it should have.  The anxiety grows the closer you get to the station until it’s in sight.  If you’re like me, you can’t really relax until you’ve made it and the tank is full again.  I think the same is true when you are sitting in your house and suddenly the lights flicker and go out.  If you have the things you need, you just grab your head lamp, go get a couple of your solar and battery powered lamps, start a fire in the fireplace if it’s cold out, and re-read Gaia’s Garden until the power comes back on.  If it doesn’t come on for a week, it will be canned food and food cooked on the grill until then.  There is nothing fear-based about it.  Prepping and permaculture don’t need to be at odds.  I would hazard a guess that many people came to permaculture by way of prepping.  I would urge people not to be so quick to lump all preppers in with a tiny group of people with anti-social personalities and delusions of grandeur.  For every Walter Mitty stock-piling an arsenal against zombie hordes, thousands of people are quietly putting away canned goods and planting gardens.  Let’s not lose sight of that.

Two prepper permaculturists I read and watch:

http://www.thesurvivalgardener.com/

http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/

and there's this: Geoff Lawton: Surviving Collapse, Designing your Way to Abundance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01N-kBSdiZI

Trace Oswald wrote:I would urge people not to be so quick to lump all preppers in with a tiny group of people with anti-social personalities and delusions of grandeur.  For every Walter Mitty stock-piling an arsenal against zombie hordes, thousands of people are quietly putting away canned goods and planting gardens.  Let’s not lose sight of that.

After reading the comments in the recently active prepper threads I honestly think for many it has more to do with race/politics/firearms and possibly even gender.  Fact is the vast majority of preppers are conservative, white, pro-gun and stereotypically male. I personally think there maybe just as many female preppers but they are less obvious online.  The fact race has been alluded to several times in these discussions by "anti-preppers"  is a big tip-off for me, firearms/defense has also been a hot point.

Apparently some want to prepare, but they sure as hell don't want to emulate or be associated with "those people", kwim?

Lucrecia - you say that like it's a bad thing. There are an awful lot of groups that I don't want to be lumped in with, preppers are just one of them. But, I will say, you go far enough left you get your guns back.  I firmly believe a well-armed populace is good protection from local leos.

Tyler Ludens wrote:Two prepper permaculturists I read and watch:

http://www.thesurvivalgardener.com/

http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/

and there's this: Geoff Lawton: Surviving Collapse, Designing your Way to Abundance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01N-kBSdiZI

Yes, I really like the survival podcast, and David Goodman is a good friend of mine.    

I think it is like permaculture you have Bill Mollison, then you have Sepp Holzer,  both have permaculture values but express it in different ways.

Prepping can have some kool people, and also has some fruit cakes as well.      I think the TV show "Doomsday Preppers"  has influenced many how they think
about prepping, and preppers.

Mart Hale wrote:  I think the TV show "Doomsday Preppers"  has influenced many how they think
about prepping, and preppers.

That show was instrumental in convincing me that the preppers I was hanging out with were loons.  It cured me of being a doomer-style prepper!

All "reality" type shows thrive on sensationalism.  How far would the show get if it focused on a group of people laughing and having fun while canning, or featured my father, brothers, and I working together to build a new chicken coop?  For people to point at that show and say "That's a prepper!" is like watching Hoarders and saying that is what people with collections are like.

Trace Oswald wrote:All "reality" type shows thrive on sensationalism.  How far would the show get if it focused on a group of people laughing and having fun while canning, or featured my father, brothers, and I working together to build a new chicken coop?  For people to point at that show and say "That's a prepper!" is like watching Hoarders and saying that is what people with collections are like.

LOL...I thought the very same thing a few minutes ago as I started canning 20 lbs of chicken.The reality is pretty mundane!

I never got into Doomsday Preppers because the themes were always so bizarre and ridiculous like the guy with no medical background dramatizing how he will perform a c-section on his wife in the barn. It would be a dark comedy if it wasn't so stupid.

Yeah, reality TV is a likely cause of the end of the world. It is what enabled my cable-cutting. That and Netflix. And what happened when reality TV took over the History Channel.

I think, like permaculture, the prepper and survivalist terms have been essentially slandered by those misusing them, or denigrated them by popularising an incomplete version of what they are.

As is plain in many of my other posts dealing with the issue of guns, I think of them as a tool. They are necessary in rural settings, for hunting and for defense against animal attack. They shouldn't be necessary against humans if your greater community has it's shit together, but I suppose I always like to be ready for the exceptions, too.

A city is a different story, in my opinion. This isn't an "out-there" thought for me, as I live in Canada, but within city limits, I don't think anyone needs to open or concealed-carry except perhaps police officers.

Honestly, I wish we had a system of mandatory civilian service, like a draft, but less drafty. Were I to design this service, it would have aspects of military reserve training, including firearms, but focus mainly on building, engineering, environmental remediation and resilient systems thinking, design, and implementation.

There would be a focus on dealing with and adapting to longer-term emergencies, essentially anything that could last any part of a growing season, with a focus on feeding and sheltering survivors and disaster refugees in the immediate term, and getting them organised enough to ensure their own security and getting them planting crops for the middle to long-term, should it apply.

This would result in a populace not only armed, but trained in the use of those arms. It would also enable a mental health screening to ensure that those individuals without the stability of temperament to own a firearm never get one.

Most importantly, it would give virtually all of the populace the tools necessary for survival in terms not usually addressed by personal prepping or survival plans.

Oh, and by mandatory, I suppose I could be meaning that there are other types of civilian service that could substitute, like geriatric care, for instance (I don't know if it's still this way, but I was told that Poland had a term of mandatory service that could be served either in the military, or in old-age homes, the latter option not being regarded very highly by some), though as my option would resemble a hardcore PDC bootcamp, with the practicum probably being earthworks and tree planting to combat local negative effects of climate change, I can't see many here who would choose otherwise.

I know this is probably anathema for any who've considered themselves preppers or survivalists, as the government is widely accepted to be somewhere on the sliding scale between corruption and incompetence, but this is honestly the only way I can think of to avoid all kinds of social chaos in the event of some kind of longer-term disruptive event.

It also has the benefit of preparing people to survive natural disasters made more frequent and severe by climate change, so it's not just a lot of work for an event that may never happen; there will be hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and icestorms, to name a few, and this sort of curriculum would probably make these easier to survive and less costly.

It might also do to boost the bonds between people, and to, well, indoctrinate people into the idea that we all have a vested self-interest in each other's survival, that the more people there exist to do the hard work of keeping civilisation going, the less I will have to do just to keep my band of survivors fed, sheltered, and literate enough to accumulate and pass on crucial skills.

Those are my thoughts on prepping. It's like the giant pantry idea. To my mind, while it's great on the family level, if every family did it, there would be more of a margin of error in hard times. If the practical measures taken by preppers and survivalists can be adapted and normalised by everyone, there will be, on average, more stored food per community. If people could benefit from cultivating survival skills in a daily context, there would be, on average, more people with useful survival skills per community.

Match that uptick in food stores and useful survival skills with a push for true social unity and human siblinghood, and it's possible that a lot of the chaos and "required immorality" that some of the reality TV survivalists salivate over simply wouldn't happen. Perhaps we'd respect ourselves too much. Perhaps we'd realise there's too much work to do on the human condition to let ourselves slide back into barbarism.

-CK

There's certainly baggage attached to "survivalist" and "prepper" due to the media/marketing machine that most of us are exposed to. Part of that marketing machine is aimed squarely at preppers too, encouraging the ideas that the power grid will go down any day, EMPs will knock out our society, and your neighbors will attack you to get at your food and brains... therefore, BUY OUR PRODUCT NOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY!

I like Chris' idea of there being a widespread idea of functional training for everyone. I recall in middle school we had shop class and home economics, and everyone learned to sew, cook, and use tools on a very limited scale. Having a far more involved population that learns a broader set of skills would be great, but our society isn't designed around "jacks of all trades", we have mostly gone the specialist route and depend on many others that we usually don't know for most of our daily functioning, effectively putting our lives in their hands.

Being able to grow and preserve (and cook!) your own food is an outstanding skill to have regardless of external factors, as is the skill set of "homesteading" in general for those who have the space/resources. I don't think the average person with such skills would consider themselves a "prepper" or "survivalist" just based on that though, those feel like unnecessary labels mostly used to be part of a particular group, which then carries that perceived baggage.

Mark Tudor wrote:
I like Chris' idea of there being a widespread idea of functional training for everyone. I recall in middle school we had shop class and home economics, and everyone learned to sew, cook, and use tools on a very limited scale.

With the advent of the internet, forums like this, and especially Youtube, there is no reason for people not to be able to learn any of these things.  For nearly anything a person wants to know, there is someone on Youtube willing to take them by the hand and walk them through it, step-by-step.  The only thing stopping anyone from doing it is a lack of personal responsibility and you can't reasonably mandate that.

I think you are generally right but I also have noticed most folks who are starting out prepping indeed start from a base of fear. I posted this in another thread about relabeling the term prepper

Devin Lavign wrote:People start out in prepping usually out of fear. They have no idea how to prep or even exactly what to prep for, but learn the world is unpredictable both from man made events and natural disasters.

This starts phase 1.

Phase 1 is gear acquisition.  At this point it is just throw money at the problem. Buy a ton of stuff you don't know anything about in hopes it is useful. Often this is a lot of prepackaged kits built and put together by someone else who says this is what you need to survive.

Some people get stuck in this, and it is easy to do. There is always a cool new toy to buy. There is a whole economy built upon it. But some folks start to break out of this as they learn that they have no idea how to use the items they have.

This starts phase 2.

Phase 2 is knowledge/skills acquisition. Now with all the gear the would be prepper is learning skills and knowledge are important. Studying things like bushcraft and primitive skills. Learning more in depth knowledge about potential dangers. In this phase many start getting more community oriented, as it tends to be hard to know everything you need. So division of skills and knowledge start to make sense. However Phase 2 can loop back to phase 1, as you learn more you realize a lot of your gear is sub par. So go through a new gear buying phase, but for higher quality good gear. Many get stuck in this as it can now be a pride thing and feed the ego knowing you have a $500 knife that is the ultimate survival knife. ETC... However the knowledge and skill phase can also lead to homesteading.

This starts phase 3.

Phase 3 is homesteading. Homesteaders are built in preppers. You have to be. Homesteading is a difficult and unpredictable place to be. You can get cut off in the winter, have crops fail, machinery go down, etc... The Homesteader has to plan for these small scale disasters. To be prepared. Also urban and suburban prepping is really an exercise in spending a lot of money to keep an unsustainable life. This is why a lot of people in prepping move toward homesteading. Realizing it is better to pre bug out. To set up the homestead and get it running. Rather than wait for disaster then try and make a go at gardening and livestock. To move to a more stable safe place with neighbors who will help rather than compete with you. Again like phase 2, phase 3 does have the loop back to phase 1. There is a lot of cool gear to get for homesteading. Some really expensive gear too. But there is also a way up to the next phase, permaculture.

This starts phase 4

Phase 4 is permaculture. For those who get to homesteading they find it a lot of hard work. But they are also often smart educated people. They often find permaculture in the process of learning homesteading, and find that it helps cut the work load and make homesteading easier. Not easy mind you, but easier than non permie homesteading. As well as a permaculture farm can be more stealthy than a standard one. Doomsday Preppers even had a guy who explained his permaculture food forest was not recognizable as a food source from distance and even up close it was hard to tell unless you really know plants. This makes permaculture very attractive to preppers. Lower labor and more camouflaged the permaculture homestead is the ideal prepping technique.

I have yet to see a phase 5, but I would not be surprised if there was one. Maybe trying to relabel prepping is phase 5.

The reason I say most prepping seems to start with a base of fear is that it is often the spark that starts prepping for noobies. The suddenly get info that drives a cold spike of fear into them. A realization that they are not prepared for a disaster that just hit a friend or family member. Fear of not being prepared is what typically sparks the average prepper into prepping. This is not to say they stay in that fear base. Though indeed plenty do stay there, as well as many get stuck in massive hypothetical disasters. Prepping for WW3 or asteroid strikes, or super volcanoes to me is just an exercise in futility. These sorts of things are just too big to prepare for unless your a billionare and can afford a massive bunker.

There are also the zombie preppers. It seems ridiculous but as someone who is a member of Zombie Squad forum I can point out that forums idea of prepping for zombies. For them it is a metaphor for all disasters. A way of making prepping sort of fun, by using the humorous idea of zombies. The idea being if you are prepared for the fictional zombie PAW then you should likely be prepared for most anything. The zombies in this sort of prepping represent the masses of unprepared people, who would be like zombies after a disaster.

As I said I feel most preppers start from a state of fear and I laid out my phases I have observed preppers go through. I see most folks pulling out of the fear base by the time they hit phase 2, if not sooner. As soon as they go down the path of knowledge and skills they tend to leave fear behind and go into a much more positive place.

And really isn't that why you prep? To no longer have a reason to fear? Once you get to a point of reasonable security and preparedness any fear you might have had should melt away. You should feel good and safe knowing you are ready for the bumps that life has to offer.

Devin Lavign wrote: However Phase 2 can loop back to phase 1, as you learn more you realize a lot of your gear is sub par. So go through a new gear buying phase, but for higher quality good gear. Many get stuck in this as it can now be a pride thing and feed the ego knowing you have a $500 knife that is the ultimate survival knife. ETC... However the knowledge and skill phase can also lead to homesteading.

As I said I feel most preppers start from a state of fear and I laid out my phases I have observed preppers go through. I see most folks pulling out of the fear base by the time they hit phase 2, if not sooner. As soon as they go down the path of knowledge and skills they tend to leave fear behind and go into a much more positive place.

Some do get stuck in phase 2 but I think that is often because they enjoy the "fantasy" of a collapse that lets them live out their boyhood dreams of running around in the woods fighting off bad guys and living off the land etc... Much like video games it provides an escape from their everyday mundane lives.  And you are right, if people stay with it past phase 2 the fear aspects go away.

I also think the stereotype of preppers as antisocial is based on reality (as most stereotypes are). They are not ALL that way but there is definitely a higher percentage than in mainstream society. The distrust of the fed gov and of people in general does drive many to prep (distrust as in thinking most people are idiots and you do not want to trust/depend on their judgement in a crisis). I certainly fall into that category.

Adapting to the anti-zombie prepper thing again. Popular topic lately. Certainly TV & internet have put a warped lunatic fringe slant on being prepared. But the fact is my grandparents were preppers their entire lives due to having lived through the Great Depression. They didn't have bomb shelters or ammo bunkers or moats full of burning oil but they did have extra food & supplies. That always made sense to me. There's nothing new about stocking up for future hardships. It's just taken a back seat in more modern times with the 24/7 ultra convenience that is available now. I find it both almost comical & very sad to hear of the mob scenes at stores every time a good storm rolls through town. Having a few supplies & skills has gotten me through too many hurricanes to remember, several tornadoes, a dozen or more serious floods, wildfires half the size of Texas, extended electrical outages, water main breaks, ice storms, trucker strikes, fuel shortages, a few illnesses & injuries, periods of unemployment, etc etc etc. Stuff happens. I try to maintain a position to be able to help others when it does. If nothing else help them learn from their bad situation so they have it easier next time. Reach them, teach them, then inspire them to get it done. Zombies in the aftermath of any disaster will not be tolerated. I strongly suggest they rethink that career path.

Bigger & better garden next year. More chickens & bees & other critters next year. More off grid. Less reliant on other outside inputs & "things". Living more in harmony with nature rather than against it. So called prepping. What's not to like?

We are now at a point in time, the elitist of the elite do not need us anymore, robots/AI about to take off. Why would they keep us alive, destroying the planet? Their planet. These peeps own more than half the planet already, growing at an exponential rate. Most people just bumble about life , not knowing, not wanting to know, afraid of all sorts. I don't see how people cannot be preppers, or at least have prepper awareness.
Doesn't mean you have to be undignified.
Childlike with all your newest toys and gadgets.
Guns aren't going to keep you alive when your diet is bad, not for long anyway.
I know about phytotherapy , healing with herbs, and help my community around me with that knowledge.
Pretty sure these farmers won't off me, when the time is there, if it ever comes.
If it doesn't come, permaculture is the only way forward any way and lots of interesting fun!

Hugo Morvan wrote:We are now at a point in time, the elitist of the elite do not need us anymore, robots/AI about to take off. Why would they keep us alive, destroying the planet? Their planet. These peeps own more than half the planet already, growing at an exponential rate. Most people just bumble about life , not knowing, not wanting to know, afraid of all sorts. I don't see how people cannot be preppers, or at least have prepper awareness.

That is the exact line of thinking that led to the current doomsday prepper mentality.

Trace Oswald wrote:

That is the exact line of thinking that led to the current doomsday prepper mentality.

Yes, to me it looks like prepping for the least likely disaster, the Robot Takeover.  Prepping for losing one's job* might be a better plan.

*"I'll just get another job" might not work these days, if one loses one's job at, say, age 58.

Hugo Morvan wrote:We are now at a point in time, the elitist of the elite do not need us anymore, robots/AI about to take off. Why would they keep us alive, destroying the planet? Their planet.

Pretty obvious that the elite are NOT trying to depopulate the planet. Quite the opposite in fact, they are encouraging extremely rapid and unsustainable population growth in some of the poorest regions of the world so they can reshuffle things to their liking.

Of course that doesn't mean they give a darn about individual lives because they clearly don't. We are pieces on a world chess board to them and they would rather replace many of us with a more malleable population -- ones that nod and agree when they elite say "We think it is best if only WE have weapons, so hand yours over and put your faith in us."  The same elite that don't hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents in foreign wars so they can make a bit of extra coin won't think twice about doing the same thing to us if/when they deem it necessary.

If they do it to others you have to expect they will do it to you too.

I forget who said it, and I'm paraphrasing, but why attribute to malice what is more easily explained by incompetence?

I don't see any evidence of world order-scale cooperation in any underhanded way. I think its plausible that competing financial interests are bumbling around trying to hog the whole pie and getting in each other's way.

That induced powerlessness has always confused me regarding the prepper and survivalist movements, which are usually at least sold as an empowering reaction to doomsday fear motivations. It always felt very Eeyore to me.

-CK

Chris Kott wrote:I forget who said it, and I'm paraphrasing, but why attribute to malice what is more easily explained by incompetence?

I don't see any evidence of world order-scale cooperation in any underhanded way. I think its plausible that competing financial interests are bumbling around trying to hog the whole pie and getting in each other's way.

That induced powerlessness has always confused me regarding the prepper and survivalist movements, which are usually at least sold as an empowering reaction to doomsday fear motivations. It always felt very Eeyore to me.

-CK

I definitely agree with that.  I don't think "the elite" give a damn about the population increasing or decreasing.  Money can be made by either.

Chris Kott wrote:I forget who said it, and I'm paraphrasing, but why attribute to malice what is more easily explained by incompetence?

I don't see any evidence of world order-scale cooperation in any underhanded way. I think its plausible that competing financial interests are bumbling around trying to hog the whole pie and getting in each other's way.

That induced powerlessness has always confused me regarding the prepper and survivalist movements, which are usually at least sold as an empowering reaction to doomsday fear motivations. It always felt very Eeyore to me.

-CK

There is very good evidence that various plans are in play (and this is not conspiracy theory nonsense). When gov memos are uncovered that clearly lay out their plan to start a civil war in Syria and then capture the land/resources....and then things unfold just that way while being directly funded by these governments there is no doubt there are evil covert plans going on all over the place aimed at creating profit for a select few while letting the masses pay for it and die for it.

Population replacement is another well documented plan that is being aggressively implemented as we speak (Kalergi plan). I am not talking about Illuminati/Bohemian Grove type BS here. This stuff is very well documented by the very governments involved. Do you really think people are incapable of coming up with evil plans? Hitler? Stalin? Mau? Pol Pot? Or do you think because most of that stuff happened decades ago times have changed and people no longer concoct evil schemes? FYI I do not know of any plans to actively exterminate millions of people, I am just using that as an example.

FYI if you are interested here  is a recent 15 min video on Merkel and the Kalergi plan by Black Pigeon Speaks,  a well known youtuber (he is not a prepper or into conspiracy theories, he is a Western Libertarian living in Tokyo and doing pigeon rescue). https://youtu.be/MBn1xi-hHpg?t=359  (start watching at the 6:00 mark to get to the history/basis of the plan).

Monster
Steppenwolf

Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of Kingdom and pope

Like good Christians some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands, to court the wild
But she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And till the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end

While we bullied, stole and bought a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
But she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

The Blue and Grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war was over
They stuffed it just like a hog

And though the past has its share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But its protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey

The spirit was freedom and justice
And its keepers seemed generous and kind
Its leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
Now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told

Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into the noose
And it just sits there watchin'

The cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole world's got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner we can't pay the cost

'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into the noose
And it just sits there watchin'

America, where are you now
Don't you care about your sons and daughters
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

America, where are you now
Don't you care about your sons and daughters
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

America...America...America...America...
Songwriters: JERRY EDMONTON,JOHN KAY

I am glad you brought up the original intent of the 2nd Amendment Stacy  “I firmly believe a well-armed populace is good protection from local leos”

The whole point was to protect the people from corrupt law enforcement. However, at this point we have militarized police to the point where arms would have to include much more than guns to even slow them down. It’s clear the only thing that makes the US govt listen to your demands are nukes (ie North Korea). I just don’t believe increasing your own lethality makes you safer, it simply makes everyone around you less safe, including yourself. People with guns are much more likely to die by them, and that has been proven many times over.

It might make sense in the context of local militias, in which it was written, where perhaps the militia is standing in for absent law enforcement officials.

It's good to keep in mind that the police are also just people. Yeah, there are a disproportionate number drawn to the profession historically by a want to dominate others, and it's not like it draws the intellectual elite, except perhaps in recent years.

Vilifying the police is about as useful as vilifying gun ownership. Why not see how it is possible to influence hiring practices and policy? Shouldn't that be easy, or at least possible, in a country where many officials are elected? Something motivating and clear, like a campaign saying, "We don't want mean, power-hungry, greedy, corrupt, bigoted, racist, or stupid cops or public officials," and then encourage people to vote accordingly.

-CK

Ben Zumeta wrote:People with guns are much more likely to die by them, and that has been proven many times over.

That statistic is spouted over and over by gun control advocates that rely on the fact that people rarely read the actual studies.  The studies showing that gun owners die by their own gun include suicides.  It seems dishonest to use the study to infer that people are shooting other innocent people, or having their guns taken from them and used against them by the criminals the gun owner meant to dissuade, when in actuality, most people that died by their own gun chose to.  I have yet to see any credible study showing that a person that committed suicide would not have had a gun not been present.

Trace Oswald wrote:The studies showing that gun owners die by their own gun include suicides.

Exactly. And countries that banned handguns found the suicide by gun rates plummeted BUT suicide by hanging, poisoning, etc... immediately surged to make up the difference.

Chris Kott wrote:It might make sense in the context of local militias, in which it was written, where perhaps the militia is standing in for absent law enforcement officials.

-CK

The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld the idea the the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective right.  The term militia at the time it was written, meant the individual citizen, and in no way meant a group of people "standing in" for law enforcement agencies.  That isn't my opinion.  It is the opinion of the highest court in our country and that court studied in great detail the historical events surrounding the writing of this document, as well as the definitions of the time.  Cases appearing before the Supreme Court since that time have strengthened that stance.  

Well that's unfortunate. It should be a privilege you earn. The only thing that kills more people is cars, and look at how highly legislated driving is, and for good reason.

-CK

Trace Oswald wrote: The term militia at the time it was written, meant the individual citizen, and in no way meant a group of people "standing in" for law enforcement agencies.  

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In what way are a bunch of individuals a "well regulated Militia"?

militia noun
mi·​li·​tia | \mə-ˈli-shə  \
Definition of militia
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia


I, as an individual with mental illness, can go out today and buy a gun for any purpose.  In what way does that constitute a "well regulated Militia"?

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote: The term militia at the time it was written, meant the individual citizen, and in no way meant a group of people "standing in" for law enforcement agencies.  

2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia


I, as an individual with mental illness, can go out today and buy a gun for any purpose.  In what way does that constitute a "well regulated Militia"?

Definitions of words change over time, and as I said, it isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court.  Also, definition 2 applies to all able-bodied male citizens of the US.  That includes every male over the age of 18 in this country currently, and in the past, there was no age limit.

A person with a mental illness is prohibited from purchasing a firearm under the following conditions:
"(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs."

It is true that a person with a mental illness can purchase firearms if they have not been deemed a threat to themselves or others, and have the mental capacity to manage their own affairs.

Can someone please explain to me how any loon going out to buy a gun for any purpose is "a well regulated Militia"?

?

Tyler Ludens wrote:Can someone please explain to me how any loon going out to buy a gun for any purpose is "a well regulated Militia"?

?

There are mountains of books written on this topic, but the bottom line is, the 2nd amendment was written into the Constitution to allow the citizens of this country to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.  It is pretty clear how they came to the conclusion that a right like that was necessary.  

Trace Oswald wrote:

Tyler Ludens wrote:Can someone please explain to me how any loon going out to buy a gun for any purpose is "a well regulated Militia"?

?

There are mountains of books written on this topic, but the bottom line is, the 2nd amendment was written into the Constitution to allow the citizens of this country to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.  It is pretty clear how they came to the conclusion that a right like that was necessary.  

I'm not asking how they came to that conclusion, I'm asking how the present situation of gun ownership, in which people who are entirely unqualified to own arms can purchase them, constitute a "well regulated Militia."

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote:

Tyler Ludens wrote:Can someone please explain to me how any loon going out to buy a gun for any purpose is "a well regulated Militia"?

?

There are mountains of books written on this topic, but the bottom line is, the 2nd amendment was written into the Constitution to allow the citizens of this country to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.  It is pretty clear how they came to the conclusion that a right like that was necessary.  

I'm not asking how they came to that conclusion, I'm asking how the present situation of gun ownership, in which people who are entirely unqualified to own arms can purchase them, constitute a "well regulated Militia."

And as I said, the definition of militia has changed.  At the time, it meant every able bodied man in this country.  At this point, I think the definition should include every able bodied woman as well.  The present situation is exactly the same as it was.  People need the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, and they can't do that if they are unarmed.  Nazi Germany is a good example.  Regardless, I don't think you are going to agree with my opinion on this.  The phrasing of your questions is such that it seems your mind is made up already.  That is your right, but my opinion and your opinion don't count in actuality.  The Supreme Court's opinion very much does.  

In what way is any random unqualified person buying a gun "well regulated"?  

In what way am I "well regulated" if I run down to the feed store and buy a gun today?

I have no problem with gun ownership.  My husband owns some guns.  I don't own any because I don't think crazy people should mess with guns.

I'm just curious about how current US citizen gun ownership constitutes "well regulated."  I'm hoping for an answer to this question.

Tyler Ludens wrote:In what way is any random unqualified person buying a gun "well regulated"?  

In what way am I "well regulated" if I run down to the feed store and buy a gun today?

I have no problem with gun ownership.  My husband owns some guns.  I don't own any because I don't think crazy people should mess with guns.

I'm just curious about how current US citizen gun ownership constitutes "well regulated."  I'm hoping for an answer to this question.

Age limits
Background checks
Waiting periods
Citizenship requirements
Felony exemptions
Exemptions for people with mental illness that are deemed a threat to themselves or others
Fugitives from justice
Unlawful users of controlled substances
Dishonorably discharged military members
People with restraining orders against them
People convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions


All those things affect your ability to buy a gun in this country.  In my opinion, and that of the prevailing law enforcement agencies and courts in this country, gun ownership is well regulated.  There is an answer to your question.  I suspect you will still disagree.

Trace:”  I have yet to see any credible study showing that a person that committed suicide would not have had a gun not been present.”

I think, like virtually every human being, you have been ignoring evidence you don’t like as well, because people with guns are vastly more likely to commit suicide. This indicates had a gun not been available, many of those suicides would not have happened. Just like any homicide or any other human activity, the easier we make something, the more likely we are to do it. Guns make suicide and other homicide much easier. How is this arguable? I could post them studies but you could also just google if interested in something beyond confirming your own preexisting beliefs.

Also, it is only fair to assume those with guns are probably more likely to be in dangerous situations and therefore sound studies should account for this with sound statistical analysis, which is doable.

Ben Zumeta wrote:Trace:”  I have yet to see any credible study showing that a person that committed suicide would not have had a gun not been present.”

I think, like virtually every human being, you have been ignoring evidence you don’t like as well, because people with guns are vastly more likely to commit suicide. This indicates had a gun not been available, many of those suicides would not have happened. Just like any homicide or any other human activity, the easier we make something, the more likely we are to do it. Guns make suicide and other homicide much easier. How is this arguable? I could post them studies but you could also just google if interested in something beyond confirming your own preexisting beliefs.

Also, it is only fair to assume those with guns are probably more likely to be in dangerous situations and therefore sound studies should account for this with sound statistical analysis, which is doable.

If you have evidence, please post it.  As I said, I haven't seen a study showing that people with guns are more apt to commit suicide, and I can't think of any reason that should be so.  In any reasonable discussion, if you make a statement, it is up to you to provide evidence to back it up.  Your statement is "people with guns are vastly more likely to commit suicide".  If you make that claim, you should have some tangible reason.  To tell me that studies back your opinion and then tell me to go find them is silly.  

I also don't agree that people with guns are more likely to be in dangerous situations.  I carry a gun, and I don't put myself in any situation that is different than when I don't carry a gun.  I certainly don't alter my lifestyle to suit whether or not a have a gun with me.  To me, that is the same as saying people drive more carelessly if they have insurance.

Trace Oswald wrote: I suspect you will still disagree.

I don't think I've disagreed with you so far.  I still don't feel very well regulated, as a militia, myself personally, since I could run out and buy a gun today for any reason without even knowing how to use it.  But I might manage to lethally blow my own head off.  

The thing about suicide attempt with a gun versus other means is that suicide attempt with a gun is far more effective than other means.  https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-suicide/

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote: I suspect you will still disagree.

I don't think I've disagreed with you so far.  I still don't feel very well regulated, as a militia, myself personally, since I could run out and buy a gun today for any reason without even knowing how to use it.

Tyler, I didn't mean disagree with me personally, although that certainly wouldn't offend me.  People have a right to whatever opinion they have.  I mean disagree that gun ownership is well regulated.

Edited to add:  I've said in other posts, I think a gun is a tool like any other.  Not knowing how to use many tools can be dangerous.  Chainsaws, axes, cars, tractors, lawn mowers, propane torches, generators can all be very dangerous if used incorrectly.  My own opinion is that people have personal responsibility to use equipment safely.