Comment by wcunning | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wcunning | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd like to modify the statistical argument against the author's conclusion -- if we take his yearly probability of violent regime change in the US and take the yearly likelihood as i.i.d., then the probability that it will happen in the remainder of my statistically likely life is significantly reduced by it not having happened in the first 1/3rd. And every year that I procrastinate prepping, I'm more and more incentivized to skip it the next year. That's the math that the average person is unconsciously doing...

To extrapolate to a rural/urban divide, the number of times I've lost power and the average length of that loss is massively lower in the city that I now live in vs. the country farmstead I grew up on, both within 100 miles of one another. Similarly, the number of times I've been unwilling to leave my house because of a major snow event or the like is much lower in the city than it was back home because the speed of road clearing is much much higher here. These sorts of infrastructure things build into the heuristic that produces "trust in the system" in a person, and the likelihood that you'll prep for a week without power or three days snowed in. Once you've prepped for that, prepping a little more is easier because you're already storing extra food and toilet paper, keeping a generator on hand to keep the well running since you're not on municipal water or sewer, etc... It all adds up to different populations feeling very differently about how sane/necessary this activity is.

This is the problem with extrapolating a linear trend from nonlinear data. I think few people would argue that the probability of revolution in the US in any given year is as high now as it was in say 1800.

When you take two data points over a period, and use those to establish a linear trend, you get misleading results. I'm nowhere near smart enough to re-crunch the numbers, but I hope someone else on HN will.

Setting aside the scenario of revolution though, there are lots of other scenarios that justify "prepping" even more. Katrina is a great example; those people who chose to stay behind were left without civilized infrastructure in some areas for quite a while. Puerto Rico, too. Here in California, we have the prospect of a devastating earthquake for which we're long overdue, and we're right on the hairy edge of our firefighting resources being overwhelmed each year.

I've taken a different approach to prepping. I'm a search and rescue volunteer and I have basic medical training. In case of major disaster, I hope to be a resource that can be sent into those areas. It's a different mindset from the stereotypical prepper, but we're really both working off of the same assumptions: that there's a significant chance of experiencing first-hand a collapse of civil infrastructure.

> I think few people would argue that the probability of revolution in the US in any given year is as high now as it was in say 1800.

Are you saying it's not? Were they cavemen in 1800, and now we are a thoughtful civilized breed?

The United States has been at war most of my life. My parents lived through a war with a draft. My grandparents experienced World War 2. Seems like war is normal and peace is the aberration.

The Indian Wars were fought pretty much constantly from before the creation of the United States until Wounded Knee in 1890. Even for a relatively young nation, it's spent the majority of its existence at war with someone.

We’re talking about civil war or unrest within its own territory, such as to potentially justify domestic gun ownership for personal defence. That’s the topic of the article, and the subject of the discussion here. In 1800 the US hadn’t even completed the Louisiana Purchase, and had many border and internal conflicts in its near future. The whole of the 19th century was a turbulent time throughout much of the Union.

Revolution, not war.

For reference, here is a metafilter user describing the actual reality of surviving Sarajevo: https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-ge...

I used to be completely skeptical of preppers, but since earlier this year we got a foot of snow resulting in no fresh food in the supermarket I have been thinking a bit more about supply chains. I still think that bringing guns into the situation is going to make it worse, not better.

Good. Less competition for me.

Being the kind of person who shoots people in a crisis is a really good way to end up getting the death penalty after a crisis is over.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

> Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

That's an odd response to someone pointing to a behavior that makes it likely they when one occurs, it will lead to the other.

This is the problem. It’s people with this kind of attitude that are most likely to want to have guns, while in a civilised society they are the last people I would trust with firearms. And this is just in the context of worrying about a bad winter.

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly. I think the author's text suggests most people have these firearms for defensive purposes, e.g. protecting their supplies from those who might try to take them. I have a few fire extinguishers. I don't go around seeking fire, but I'm prepared if one breaks out.

It was in reply to a comment about getting snowed in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com