Get any book of mine free. Here's how.

Kevin Pezzi, MD

I developed technology to instantly
stop school shooters and other criminals,
such as rapists, robbers, home invaders,
and shoplifters. I also created ways to block
airborne germ transmission. Read more >

Iconoclastic views on economics, politics, technology, science, and life.

Disagree with something I wrote? So do I! Read more

“To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.”

— Elbert Hubbard, American editor, publisher, and writer (1856–1915)

Trivia: He and his wife, Alice Moore Hubbard, the noted feminist and writer, died aboard the RMS Lusitania, which was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine on May 7, 1915, when they were heading to Europe to cover the war and interview Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany.

If you disagree with something I wrote, feel free to challenge it. Some of my viewpoints are the antithesis (exact opposite) of what they once were. That isn't flip-flopping; that is changing opinions with scant evidence to support them into convictions with a firmer foundation of facts.

My political philosophy is an amalgamation of libertarian, conservative, and liberal principles. My opinions have changed so significantly that my conservative friends might be horrified by how I strongly believe that liberals are correct on certain issues. I've previously written about some of them, but to make this more fun, I will present others as challenges in which I offer $100,000 to the first person who can refute the logic I used in forming that opinion. Please note that due to my limited time and difficulty using my hands after I broke my neck, I cannot quickly update my previously published opinions. However, now that I am balancing the promptings of head and heart, I strongly disagree with many opinions I expressed in my writings.

I like finding people who make me think, not necessarily those who agree with me. Genius Robert Heinlein said, “I never learned from a man who agreed with me.” If you can educate me, I'm all ears.

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”
— Albert Einstein

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
— Albert Einstein

“What I would like to see more often in this nation is an open and intelligent conversation, not people just casting aspersions at each other … it's unbelievable to me the way people act like third graders. And if somebody doesn't agree with them, they're this and they're that … it comes from both sides. And it's just so infantile.”
— Dr. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon

“The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate.”
— Dr. Wayne Dyer

“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”
— General George Patton

“Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.”
— Oliver Wendell Holmes

“A lot of people risk their lives in a brief act of heroism, which is kind of cool, but Jill has what I call slow heroism. She is risking her professional life on something that her own calculations show may not work for a thousand years—may not ever. So I like to support people that are risking their lives.”
— ex-Microsoft billionaire brainiac Nathan Myhrvold speaking about Jill Tarter, who inspired the character played by Jodie Foster in the movie Contact. It takes a brilliant person to see that others who go against the grain of conventional wisdom may be sages although lesser minds often ridicule their ideas.

“I am not young enough to know everything.”
— Oscar Wilde

“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
— Winston Churchill

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
— Euripides, Greek tragic dramatist (484 BC - 406 BC)

“It is socially unacceptable to be right too early.”
— Robert Heinlein

“I'd rather stand alone on the truth than with millions on a lie.”

“The most distinctive mark of a cultured mind is the ability to take another's point of view; to put one's self in another's place, and see life and its problems from a point of view different from one's own. To be willing to test a new idea; to be able to live on the edge of difference in all matters intellectually; to examine without heat the burning question of the day; to have imaginative sympathy, openness and flexibility of mind, steadiness and poise of feeling, cool calmness of judgment, is to have culture.”
— Arthur H. R. Fairchild

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
— Theodore Roosevelt

“It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.”
— Abraham Lincoln

This reminds me of something stressed by one of my psychology professors, who said that society imposes rigid boundaries for what behavior is acceptable, and applies tremendous pressure trying to force people to conform to the behavioral expectations. Some of the most brilliant and productive outside-the-box thinkers led unconventional lives. One of the side effects of forcing people to think inside the box is that by lopping off outside-the-box behavior, potentially great outside-the-box ideas are lost, too.

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”
— Edward R. Murrow, American journalist (1908-1965)

“You will not do incredible things without an incredible dream.”
— John Eliot

If the government collapses, guns won't save you

This article is part of the
$100,000 Challenge Series

People often think they are enlightened even when they believe things that should have been left in the Dark Ages.

In this series, I will challenge conventional wisdom and explore some odd and unjustifiable beliefs that persist, offering $100,000 to the first person who can solve each challenge, proving me wrong. My opinions are bound to ruffle some feathers and make you think.

Now that even mainstream politicians and pundits admit that the United States government might collapse, many people have contemplated the resultant lack of security and what might fill that void. The most common answer is personal firearms.

Can guns save you? Yes, but not for long. They might extend your lifespan by a few days, or months if you are exceedingly lucky. Eventually, you will run smack-dab into an inescapable statistical reality: You won't be the only armed person on the planet. If you have food, water, shelter, and warmth, an endless number of folks without those essentials will be willing to end your life to take what you have. History has shown that even normal people sometimes resort to violence to get what they or their loved ones need to survive.

As a doctor, I know the prevalence of people who lack a conscience (sociopaths), and all it takes is one of them—or one desperate soccer mom who values the lives of her starving kids more than your life—to do what they need to survive. Sociopaths won't wait until their ribs are sticking out before they begin pulling a trigger (learn how to spot a sociopath). If you have food or a cute teenage daughter, more than a few people will be gunning for you.

We've been coddled since birth by living in a country in which food, water, medicine, healthcare, shelter, energy, and security were taken for granted and provided by “the system”—rarely by us individually. If the system breaks down when the economy collapses (which is very likely), its interdependent nature means the breakdown will be widespread and difficult to reverse. Thus, it isn't realistic to pin ones hopes of survival on products of technology, such as ammunition, which will eventually run out. What then?

I don't know anyone who lives in a well-fortified castle stocked with everything needed for a lifetime, so venturing outside will be mandatory.

Gun battles are inevitable, but the erroneous presumption is that defenders (perhaps you guarding your family, home, and property) will win every shootout. Actually, the converse is more likely true.

Attackers always have the element of surprise; thus they will shoot and kill people from a distance before the victims know they are under attack. Even if the attackers are kind enough to walk up and announce their intentions, how many duels do you think you'll win? Statistically, about half (50%, or 0.5). Now do a 0.5 to the y power calculation to roughly compute your odds of survival after “y” battles. After just two battles, you're more likely dead than alive. After five battles, you're almost certainly dead. If you live in a populated area, you could have five battles per hour.

Consequently, if guns are not a good post-collapse life insurance policy, what is? The same survival strategies that human civilization has honed over eons: cooperation and fair play—basically, the Golden Rule ethic of reciprocity—combined with a general realization that anyone breaking the rules will receive swift and sure justice.

Incidentally, I am not anti-gun; I am just cognizant of their limitations. Guns will be virtually worthless as self-defense tools if social order breaks down. Furthermore, killing or wounding others is not productive; injuries just increase the drain on limited resources, thus further exacerbating the net loss. Therefore, the personal and societal net effect of guns will be negative if they are used as a desperate substitute for police protection.

The $100,000 challenge: Factually demonstrate that guns could be effectively used by most people so they had a reasonable chance of living a normal lifespan despite the fact that in a post-collapse economy, people will either have what they need to survive (thus making them targets for those who wish to take it) or they might be one of the many people who cannot provide the survival essentials, so they predictably will try to forcibly take what they need.

The views expressed on this page may or may not reflect my current opinions, nor do they necessarily represent my past ones. After reading a slice of what I wrote in my various websites and books, you may conclude that I am a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican. Wrong; there is a better alternative. Just as the primary benefit from debate classes results when students present and defend opinions contrary to their own, I use a similar strategy as a creative writing tool to expand my brainpower—and yours. Mystified? Stay tuned for an explanation. PS: The wheels in your head are already turning a bit faster, aren't they?

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
— F. Scott Fitzgerald

Reference: Imagining dialogue can boost critical thinking: Excerpt: “Examining an issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning …”

Kevin Pezzi, MD

If the government collapses, guns won't save you

Comments (0)