[omgbananas]

I reread the title and noticed it does have the word "gun" in it, so there is a little merit to your argument, but I stand by my belief it was just included because I think most people associate "prepping" with gun hoarders. The author clearly is more interested in the math than the guns here.

The beginning of the title is "The Surprisingly Solid Mathematical Case" and the author devotes a lot more space in the article about that than guns. So it's tiring when people jump on the gun bandwagon, than talk about the math of the disasters.

[mikeash]

A mathematical case would discuss the benefit you get from prepping once disaster strikes. The article talks a lot about the probability of disaster, but takes the benefit of prepping as a foregone conclusion, and essentially equates prepping with stockpiling guns and ammo.

An actual solid mathematical case for gun stockpiling would need to show that 1) disasters are likely enough to prep for 2) the expected benefits of prepping outweigh the costs and 3) stockpiling guns is a better use of your finite resources than e.g. buying more canned beans.

It hits 1 pretty well, then it gives up and just assumes 3. No surprise that the discussion it generates isn’t very productive.

[ticviking]

> An actual solid mathematical case for gun stockpiling would need to show that 1) disasters are likely enough to prep for 2) the expected benefits of prepping outweigh the costs and 3) stockpiling guns is a better use of your finite resources than e.g. buying more canned beans.

He kind of addresses that when he mentions the "raider" survival plan. "For an unethical zombie prepper, firearms may be all they need, if they can find someone else from whom to steal."

Maybe I'm deep enough into gun culture to see something as implicit where it ought to be explicit, but that suggests that it's worth having a minimum amount of deterrent against hostile parties once you have a few weeks food.