Convincing People that Guns Are Bad, M'Kay.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know what you're arguing about.

I merely stated what I believe to be the fact - the reality. People are not prepared. I saw that very clearly in 2003, when all the power was out in my State. People were helpless pretty quickly. At most, people would have one full take of gas to get anywhere, and then they'd have to steal from another vehicle or from a filling station's ground tank.

The point is you can't be prepared and if you pretend you can prepare for the apocalyse of the end of civilization instead of ensuring government and society doesnt fail you are actually increasing the chances of it happening

Who is saying otherwise?

However, it is one thing to SAY "adequately fund the government to ensure it never happens," and it's another thing to do it. The government isn't magic, and it hardly ever really knows what it is doing. What gives you the idea that there is a level of funding available that will "ensure this never happens?" And, what level of funding is that?

[Coito ergo sum]

Grow some fucking stones. You're so easily frightened by weaponry and barbarity that you'd sell your arse to the first Mummy and Daddy tyrants that comes along with a slice of cake?
That's the type of guy that ends up shot by resistance troops. If you think that the Government is there to protect the citizenry of a state. You're certainly one of the 99%.

Pretty much any government no matter how vile is better than no goverment at all

Well,on that point, I will have to wholeheartedly disagree. Governments can be and have been much worse than "no government at all." Moreover, that's a false choice anyway, since there is always the choice to have a different government.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes the buses will automatically run without government, food and water will be delivered and everyone will just behave without the police

Police departments are a relatively new addition to civilization and government. For most of human history, even in western civilization, there weren't any "police."

Buses don't "automatically run" with government either.

Food and water is not "automatically" delivered now either.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Romans had police, IIRC.

[MrJonno]

Police departments are a relatively new addition to civilization and government. For most of human history, even in western civilization, there weren't any "police."

There has always been the police or the army, having law and order being seperate from the miltary is a relevantly new idea but its hardly universal (certainly a lot of police /army cooperation in the UK and most other countries). In the event of a major collapse in civilization its going to be a military running things anyway not the police

[Coito ergo sum]

Police departments are a relatively new addition to civilization and government. For most of human history, even in western civilization, there weren't any "police."

There has always been the police or the army, having law and order being seperate from the miltary is a relevantly new idea but its hardly universal (certainly a lot of police /army cooperation in the UK and most other countries). In the event of a major collapse in civilization its going to be a military running things anyway not the police

"Or" the army? The army never were police. They didn't patrol, or answer distress calls and such.

Putting people in jail is also relatively new. That was very uncommon until around the 18th century and even then there were hardly any jails or prisons. It wasn't until the 19th century, really, that incarceration took off as a progressive remedy for crime. Before that, it was hanging, corporal punishment, stocks and other public humiliation, banishment, outlawry, gelds/fines, and other such punishments.

Before late 18th century, in England there was a system of sheriffs, reeves, and investigative "juries", but these were nothing like police forces we have today. Most of "policing" under the British systems was done by private watchmen, and watchmen at town gates. In England, it wasn't until the mid-1700s that the King started funding anything like a police force.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Or" the army? The army never were police. They didn't patrol, or answer distress calls and such.

The same people that answered the call to arms in time of war would be the people who answered distress calls. There wasn't much, if any, difference between "army" and "police" in most ancient societies.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Or" the army? The army never were police. They didn't patrol, or answer distress calls and such.

The same people that answered the call to arms in time of war would be the people who answered distress calls. There wasn't much, if any, difference between "army" and "police" in most ancient societies.

That was called vigilantism. The neighbors would answer calls, they'd find a suspected wrongdoer, and they'd either string 'im up right away or they'd hold a trial and string 'im up after that. That is not "police" as we know them today. Essentially, they were systems of accusation and decree and private justice.

[Woodbutcher]

If the apocalypse should come, I will travel northabout 200 km by canoe. No people there, no one will accidentally drop by, and game is plentiful. You are trapped in a bunker, and trapped if there are people living on all sides of you. That's why I like Canada. We're a wilderness with no roads as soon as you move away from the international border. Lots of room to roam.

[Coito ergo sum]

...believe me...you'll have company fairly quickly. Plenty of hungry company.

[MrJonno]

Before late 18th century, in England there was a system of sheriffs, reeves, and investigative "juries", but these were nothing like police forces we have today. Most of "policing" under the British systems was done by private watchmen, and watchmen at town gates. In England, it wasn't until the mid-1700s that the King started funding anything like a police force.

Before the 18th century in general there was very little that could be recognised as a country at all, all you really had was local fiefdoms (with their own military/police/milita) with a very loose localty to some central leadership usually a king or equivalent (much like Afghanistan today).

The 18th century was basically the beginning of civilization on a national scale (one of the reasons why I don't understand why anyone would want to revere anyone from that time period bar they may have been an improvment on what came before)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Or" the army? The army never were police. They didn't patrol, or answer distress calls and such.

The same people that answered the call to arms in time of war would be the people who answered distress calls. There wasn't much, if any, difference between "army" and "police" in most ancient societies.

That was called vigilantism. The neighbors would answer calls, they'd find a suspected wrongdoer, and they'd either string 'im up right away or they'd hold a trial and string 'im up after that. That is not "police" as we know them today. Essentially, they were systems of accusation and decree and private justice.

Nonsense. The warriors were not vigilantes, they were the law. And they, in most cases just like today, conformed to the norms of society.

[Gallstones]

"Or" the army? The army never were police. They didn't patrol, or answer distress calls and such.

The same people that answered the call to arms in time of war would be the people who answered distress calls. There wasn't much, if any, difference between "army" and "police" in most ancient societies.

That was called vigilantism. The neighbors would answer calls, they'd find a suspected wrongdoer, and they'd either string 'im up right away or they'd hold a trial and string 'im up after that. That is not "police" as we know them today. Essentially, they were systems of accusation and decree and private justice.

No.
It is called the National Guard.
Yes, they aren't police. They are military. And they have done, and are doing domestic patrol.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was referring to the past, before either police or military were formalized, btw.

[Gallstones]

Excerpt from Guns, Germs and Steele by Jared Diamond.
Copyright 1997
Chapter 2 A Natural Experiment of History
Pages 53-54

On the Chatham Islands, 500 miles east of New Zealand, centuries of independence came to a brutal end for the Moriori people in December 1835. On November 19 of that year, a ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs, and axes arrived, followed on December 5 by a shipload of 400 more Maori. Groups of Maori began to walk through Moriori settlements, announcing that the Moriori were now their slaves, and killing those who objected. An organized resistance by the Moriori could still then have defeated the Maori, who were outnumbered two to one. However, the Moriori had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully. They decided in a council meeting not to fight back, but to offer peace, friendship, and a division of resources.

Before the Moriori could deliver that offer, the Maori attacked en masse. Over the course of the next few days, they killed hundreds of Moriori, cooked and ate many of the bodies, and enslaved all the others, killing most of them too over the next few years as it suited their whim.

A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession...in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed, and others we killed--but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom."

IMO, anyone who believes that they can be safe because they presume to have the moral high ground, is laughably--maybe even tragically--naive.

Humans are still violent primates.

Oh don't you love indigenous tribes? There so wise and ethnic and spiritual.

And ignorant of so many things the Europeans so kindly brought to better their noble savage lives--like agriculture, and alcohol and the Missionary position and smallpox.

(I do know that the American Indian people had agriculture in some parts of the continent, probably practiced missionary too. They were grateful for those guns and horses though.)

The Illinois Confederacy was a representative Democracy. Even women served as leaders.

There was greater variety of politics and culture in the Americas than there was in contemporary Europe.