I am confused about your response. This document, which is titled 'Doomsday planning for less crazy folk' and starts 'The prepper culture begs to be taken with a grain of salt..' appears to include hurricane preparations as part of 'the prepper culture', making hurricane preparations a proper subset of the prepper culture.
Yet with "Statistically speaking hurricane prepping is much bigger deal in America than survivalism" you imply that 'survivalism' does not include hurricane prepping, so is not the same as the 'prepper culture' from the paper.
Since you identified pre-WWII farm culture as being close to prepper culture, could you explain how survivalism fits in, and how it's different from hurricane prepping? Because I think you are talking looking at the similarities in self-sufficiency. In that case, isn't the back-to-the-soil movement of the 1960s more similar to pre-WWII farming culture than the prepper culture, despite the lack of interest in weapons in that movement?
> I think it's also part of a larger campaign to sell more hamburgers and wal-mart stock
That seems like rather weak evidence. Statistically speaking, presidents on TV get killed a lot more in real life, and space aliens visit Earth a lot. Once upon a time I thought the popularity of all of the SF shows was part of a larger campaign to get us used to the idea of extraterrestrial life, before making the announcement that aliens existed.
I appear to have been wrong, as I had no idea at the time that space aliens had been part of TV culture for decades, and it's been decades more without announcement.
How will you know if you are wrong?
> because they don't have the firearms they would need to restore peace on their own.
Do you have any idea of how may firearms (per capita) are needed for that? Because Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and France are still in the top list of countries in per capita gun ownership. How many more will they need?
> after a major emergency
That is a very broad topic. Sweden, for example, had many preparations for a nuclear exchange, including tax rebates for people who built bomb/fallout shelters in their homes. Switzerland still requires households to maintain a year supply of food, and a bomb shelter.
How is it that in all these preparations, they've forgotten to ensure a large enough supply of weapons for post-nuclear internal peace keeping?
> hundreds of thousands if not millions of veterans currently own rifles strikingly similar to those they carried in the armed forces
Yes, and Switzerland "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training", though they don't keep ammunition at home.
In the 1990s, my European co-workers in the US, who were all of draft age during the Cold War, had been conscripted, including from Germany, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria - from both sides of the Iron Curtain. My Army wife and an Iranian ex-co-worker swapped stories about serving in the same part of the Middle East, just on opposite sides of the border.
So plenty of Europeans have some experience in the military, at least for some countries.
> In the Middle East these troops were frequently tasked with restoring order to urban areas exploding in internecine strife
Now you're going on a tangent that seems little to do with pre-WWII farming culture.
What sort of military training, and more importantly special forces operation experience, did your grandmother's family have, and how was it useful for their farm life?
> Yet with "Statistically speaking hurricane prepping is much bigger deal in America than survivalism" you imply that 'survivalism' does not include hurricane prepping, so is not the same as the 'prepper culture' from the paper.
There is a distinction in America between prepping for medium to long term service disruptions, and preparing for a hurricane. The later merely involves nailing boards onto your house's windows then driving north for a few hours whereas the formed is commonly dubbed 'survivalism'. I should have been more clear about what I meant by the terminology.
> In that case, isn't the back-to-the-soil movement of the 1960s more similar to pre-WWII farming culture than the prepper culture, despite the lack of interest in weapons in that movement?
I think the back-to-the-soil movement of the 1960s is very similar to pre-WWII farming culture. I think that even in the 1960s statistically speaking wherever there's been farms and middle class in the United States there's been guns. I think that today tons of people who back in the 1960s would have been characterized as "back-to-the-soil" are being roped into the "prepper" category by a media blitz that wishes to discourage the transmission of those pre-WWII values to a new generation of Americans.
I think that all we're seeing here is a back-to-the-land movement by a generation that is growing up in a time where the spectre of 'terrorism' looms large. Also you can see it in the artwork and music, these younger generations were more likely influenced by Kurt Cobain, Henry Rollins, or Biggie Smalls than Carlos Santana or Jimi Hendrix, so naturally they're going to exhibit a little more 'hard core' tendencies when they do go back to the land.
> I appear to have been wrong, as I had no idea at the time that space aliens had been part of TV culture for decades, and it's been decades more without announcement.
Maybe for your generation it was space aliens and this generation has zombies and vampires, go figure. There do seem to be some ominous continuities between the two pop culture phenomenon, but that could just be my imagination.
> Do you have any idea of how may firearms (per capita) are needed for that? Because Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and France are still in the top list of countries in per capita gun ownership. How many more will they need?
Thats the problem with trying to talk about Europe as a whole, there are several important exceptions, most notably the Swiss. You forgot the Czech Republic add them to your list.
> Yes, and Switzerland "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training", though they don't keep ammunition at home.
The Swiss have their shit together what more can I say.
> So plenty of Europeans have some experience in the military, at least for some countries.
I certainly didn't meant to imply that they didn't, I hope I didn't offend.
> In the Middle East these troops were frequently tasked with restoring order to urban areas exploding in internecine strife
>Now you're going on a tangent that seems little to do with pre-WWII farming culture.
> What sort of military training, and more importantly special forces operation experience, did your grandmother's family have, and how was it useful for their farm life?
my bad! Let me reiterate the point: In my view there is both a back-to-the-land phenomena and a prepper phenomena going on in the modern United States which are distinct although there is some overlap. The back-to-the-land movement is much much larger than the prepper movement statistically, but you don't get that picture from watching the TV.
The media doesn't want to acknowledge the back-to-the-land movement because it's not seen as good for business, so they try to paint everyone with a pickup truck as a prepper. In computer programming there is a movement towards "remote work". In the 1960s the status symbol for having made it in your career was having your own office secretary and a reserved parking spot, but in the modern era perhaps the new way to know you have arrived is when you are free to work from home... or even from the farm.
Thank you for your answer. However, I am still curious as to how many guns (per capita) you think are needed to maintain peace should police and other civilian authority break down.
well everyone should be armed of course, and have gone through firearms safety training, but it's not just about the sheer number of guns it's also about their capacities but most importantly it's training that matters.
I definitely don't think that in order to provide security everyone needs an AR-15 or an AK-47 which is how some people over here think. Today in America the AR-pattern rifle (the semi-automatic civilian version of the familiar full-auto-capable M-16 or M-4) is the most popular model of rifle, with millions sold in the past decade. Virtually all of them produced in the past decade have abandoned the old M-16’s signature “carrying handle” rear iron sight for a standardized sight mounting rail, meaning that virtually every AR sold today can be easily equipped with an efficient optical sight. Firing the high-velocity 5.56×45 mm cartridge and mounted with a four-power tactical sight, a typical AR rifle can shoot two-inch groups at one hundred yards when fired from a steady bench rest. That translates to shooting eight- to ten-inch groups at four hundred yards.
Four hundred yards is a long walk. Pace it off on a straight road, and observe how tiny somebody appears at that distance. Yet a typical AR rifle, like those currently owned by millions of American citizens, can hit a man-sized target at that range very easily, given a stable firing platform and a moderate level of shooting ability.
But what a lot of people don't realize is there are a far greater number of scoped bolt-action hunting rifles in private hands in the United States. Keep this number in mind: based on deer stamps sold, approximately twenty million Americans venture into the woods every fall armed with such rifles, fully intending to shoot and kill a two-hundred-pound mammal. Millions of these scoped bolt-action deer rifles are quite capable of hitting a man-sized target at ranges out to and even beyond a thousand yards, or nearly three-fifths of a mile. In that context, the 500-yard effective range of the average semi-auto AR-pattern rifle is not at all remarkable.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that you don't have to break the bank to arm your society in an effective way. Your country will be doing just fine if most people simply have a bolt action scoped hunting rifle but what they really need is firearms training.
The US doesn't fit your recommendation, as most of the population hasn't had firearms safety training. Why do you think it will be able to handle types of civilian disturbances you mentioned earlier, when not everyone is so trained?
Earlier you said "in Europe nobody has a choice but to rely solely on the government to stabilize the situation after a major emergency because they don't have the firearms they would need to restore peace on their own."
Therefore, which scenarios do you think the US, with its armed citizenry, will be able to handle more successfully than the equivalent in most European areas? If more Finns per capita have had more training than Americans, wouldn't that be a safer country still? How is a policy maker supposed to figure out what level of gun ownership and training is optimal?
Yet with "Statistically speaking hurricane prepping is much bigger deal in America than survivalism" you imply that 'survivalism' does not include hurricane prepping, so is not the same as the 'prepper culture' from the paper.
Since you identified pre-WWII farm culture as being close to prepper culture, could you explain how survivalism fits in, and how it's different from hurricane prepping? Because I think you are talking looking at the similarities in self-sufficiency. In that case, isn't the back-to-the-soil movement of the 1960s more similar to pre-WWII farming culture than the prepper culture, despite the lack of interest in weapons in that movement?
> I think it's also part of a larger campaign to sell more hamburgers and wal-mart stock
That seems like rather weak evidence. Statistically speaking, presidents on TV get killed a lot more in real life, and space aliens visit Earth a lot. Once upon a time I thought the popularity of all of the SF shows was part of a larger campaign to get us used to the idea of extraterrestrial life, before making the announcement that aliens existed.
I appear to have been wrong, as I had no idea at the time that space aliens had been part of TV culture for decades, and it's been decades more without announcement.
How will you know if you are wrong?
> because they don't have the firearms they would need to restore peace on their own.
Do you have any idea of how may firearms (per capita) are needed for that? Because Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and France are still in the top list of countries in per capita gun ownership. How many more will they need?
> after a major emergency
That is a very broad topic. Sweden, for example, had many preparations for a nuclear exchange, including tax rebates for people who built bomb/fallout shelters in their homes. Switzerland still requires households to maintain a year supply of food, and a bomb shelter.
How is it that in all these preparations, they've forgotten to ensure a large enough supply of weapons for post-nuclear internal peace keeping?
> hundreds of thousands if not millions of veterans currently own rifles strikingly similar to those they carried in the armed forces
Yes, and Switzerland "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training", though they don't keep ammunition at home.
In the 1990s, my European co-workers in the US, who were all of draft age during the Cold War, had been conscripted, including from Germany, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria - from both sides of the Iron Curtain. My Army wife and an Iranian ex-co-worker swapped stories about serving in the same part of the Middle East, just on opposite sides of the border.
So plenty of Europeans have some experience in the military, at least for some countries.
> In the Middle East these troops were frequently tasked with restoring order to urban areas exploding in internecine strife
Now you're going on a tangent that seems little to do with pre-WWII farming culture.
What sort of military training, and more importantly special forces operation experience, did your grandmother's family have, and how was it useful for their farm life?