[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.