Let’s paint the scenario. Let’s say there is a huge famine in America. People are literally dying everyday on the news from hunger. California is fairing best, not great but best. They have the largest cold food storage space and the supply chain of food typically goes through them first. Curfews are out in place to stop looting Other states are relying on their local agriculture to produce but can’t sue to a water shortage. This leaves them with food storage they may or may not have stored before the famine. Not willing to see their kids starve, Some are willing to kill their neighbors for a can of peas. politics are going crazy. Almost like the no mask crowd we now have a crowd of no sharing. They stockpiled while things were good and they’re literally willing to watch their neighbors starve to death. Churches are trying to get their people to bring what supplies they have to the church and distribute it equally. The fear they won’t get an equal cut or they will lose too much holds people back. The police have a very difficult time because they have to worry about guarding the rations that do come in. The president is talking of making new laws and starting a new political arm of government aimed at taking things that are now either too dangerous or food that someone has too much of. I’m the name of the common good people must share their food storage. California will be forced to ship out its cold storage equally amongst the states. As will the other large cold storage states. Utah residents have to open their doors to the new federal food police (we all know Mormons have food storage). Shootings happen to stop them from taking the food and they then start confiscation of firearms just for the time being. then they do the same thing in other states. All in the name of the better good for the collective. So which laws would you support in this scenario?
C'mon now, is this a serious question? The law doesnt mean anything when someone has gone long enough without food and someone else has food. There'll be a fight, and both sides will want guns in the fight.
Well, that's a non-starter in the United States. The government has exactly zero chance of confiscating literally hundreds of millions of firearms. The best you could hope for is that people eventually run out of ammo...
It sounds like you meant: what does famine have to do with gun control? Of course you're right- in the 'famine US' OP scenario, those with guns hold all the cards (or food, as it were). But I reckon few are the ppl stocking up on one but not the other.
Thing is we haven't had a real famine anywhere since the 1930s, The famines in Ethiopia particularly (which may be having another one right now) were more a matter of distribution than any real lack. Food was rotting on the docks because the various factions wouldn't let it be taken to the refugee camps and I have been told that is generally the case everywhere nowadays. Some areas do have bad years but it seems almost unheard of for that to be the case everywhere all at once. As long a food can be transported it seems there is always enough. OTOH one thing that shouldn't be forgotten is that the USA is called the "Persian Gulf of Food" and has been for some years and the USA might be one of the big losers in the coming Global Warming changes that are anticipated. It is quite possible that the incredible fertility and productivity of the area that used to be called The Great American Desert will not last much longer given a hotter and dryer climate.
when society as a whole is starving, laws break down, survival mode kicks in ironically, starving for short periods (around a month) for those with enough fat will actually extend their lifespans... too long though and malnutrition sets in read up on fasting and Autophagy, it will surprise you