Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 March 23

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 23

What could a city do to prepare/endure a Recession

`What accomodations could a suburban city of ~50K do to prepare for a recession? Imagine this city as being mostly white collar people that commute out of town, had urban sprawl till recently, and has much agricultural resources.

What could it do to prepare for and whether an economic storm? How would it obtain and retian cash (even though cash may become worthless)? How would it continue to provide services?--Prowress (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would obtain cash during the good times, from taxes. If they had a lean budget at that time, then they could save away a lot of it in a "rainy day fund". If they were worried about the collapse of their currency, they could put their money in gold or some other safe asset.

Some cities have a large, one-time revenue from the sale of some asset, like land, but then blow it on something frivolous, like a sports stadium. If they had the foresight to save that surplus, instead, they would fare far better in the next recession. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

When you say "recession", I get the impression that you're not really asking about the usual two-quarters-of-negative-economic-growth definition, but rather some sort of broader economic and governmental collapse, where our post-apocalypse bedroom community is largely isolated from the rest of the world. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the largest expense of most governments is wages. They would probably cut back on services, meaning layoff staff and cut back opening hours to compensate. Schools, hospitals, parks etc. could get closed as well. Infastructure like roads, water projects would be cancelled.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the type of thing they would be forced to do if they hadn't prepared properly (which alas, seems to almost always be the case). However, laying people off during a recession is not the way to end it quickly, and can make it worse. If they had the "rainy day fund", they should use it to maintain services (and employment) and perhaps fund worker re-education programs and maybe directly employ the unemployed. The time for austerity is when times are good, and the time for spending is when times are bad. Unfortunately, this requires a level of planning and discipline completely lacking in most politicians. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In Canada I don't think many governments are politically 'allowed' a rainy day fund. The voters wouldn't support it. Alberta has one provincially, that was approved by the electorate. It is adjusted when fossil fuel revenues go up and down. Most government budgets are spent each year, 100%. This is keeps taxes down which gains votes. Saving money from tax coffers would lose votes in most cases. One should remember that the people decide such things, not governments. Most gornments also have a debt they are paying interest on that would also be a better use of any extra funds. Basically pay off the car, credit cards, and house before putting in savings.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Governments are non-profit organizations. If a government takes in more than it spends, i.e. "running a surplus", the usual approach is to issue some kind of rebate to the citizenry. Ideally, a government should spend exactly what it brings in - no more, no less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If individuals and families retain a rainy days fund, why shouldn't governments? That's what OP was asking about really, an emergency reserve of cash, foreign currency, precious metals, food, fuel, and medical supplies. Anonymous.translator (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Most governments are in debt. It would be bad business sense to stash cash when you are paying interest on loans. In crisis they can declare martial law and thus control all fuel, food, supplies, etc. anyway. Please correct me if I am wrong.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, most cities have recently been through a recession, and their strategies are well known. The main one has been to cut services, lay off workers, and negotiate less generous contracts with the workers who remain. I suspect you are asking about something worse than a recession, such as an economic collapse. In this scenario, many or most of the white-collar workers who form the city's tax base might be unemployed. Unfortunately, the demand for their white-collar skills might no longer exist. To prepare for this scenario, the best thing for the city to do would be to prepare for a very different economic scenario, one in which the city's job might be to facilitate a barter economy, or an economy based on a local currency, in which residents trade goods and services with one another and with other communities nearby. You might want to look at our articles on local currency and Transition Towns and follow the external links to explore setting up these programs in your city. A key element of the Transition model is "reskilling", or programs teaching people skills that may be needed in a time of less affluence and economic complexity, such as gardening, using hand tools, sewing, carpentry, and so on. In your city's case, you might particularly want to focus on developing skills that would allow residents to trade for food with farmers in your urban periphery. What inputs do farmers currently get from far away that you might provide locally in the event of a breakdown of global trade? Or, in the event of severe fuel and energy shortages, you might set aside plots of land where residents could learn to farm using horses or oxen to plow or using intensive no-till methods like those developed by Masanobu Fukuoka or the proponents of permaculture. The use of draft animals on a larger scale would of course entail a draft-animal breeding program. It would be wise to start this preparation before any economic collapse, perhaps starting with volunteers who are already unemployed or underemployed. Pardon me if I am presenting a scenario more extreme than you meant to contemplate. Marco polo (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

All very good points. In a true crisis governments have plans for the short term. It is wisest for all to learn skills as you stated that may be handy in the long term .--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear. Bugs suggested that in an ideal government (with no outstanding debt) the revenue should equal the expenses precisely.

I suggested that the ideal government (with no outstanding debt) should keep a reserve for emergencies in addition to having a balanced budget.

I think you're confusing eminent domain with martial law. Eminent domain is "I'm taking your stuff for the public good". Martial law may entail eminent domain, but not necessarily. In any case confiscation may not work because:

1) There may be armed resistance to it

2) The government may no longer have the full support of the armed forces

3) There isn't enough goods to confiscate

In general, giving out free stuff is preferable to breaking down doors. Granted the "stuff" isn't really free, but people will be too desperate to realize that in an emergency.

The argument against such a fund would be that it's the individual's free choice whether to save for the rainy day or not, and the state has no right to make such a decision on the individual's behalf.Anonymous.translator (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I live in Alberta, Canada. It is one of the few governments that acually has such a fund, and no debt until the 2008 crunch. I think the people allowed the government to go into deficit financing as opposed to tapping the fund. I also think that martial law in Canada may have far different rules than other nations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by sovereign wealth funds I found a list. It seems that three states have them, but no cities as of yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to make a potentially controversial suggestion.

Public transit.

Most middle-class Americans plan their lives around the assumption that transportation will never be a problem. If the economy takes a sudden downturn many of us may find ourselves in positions where just getting around is a serious issue.

Here in New England, the suburbs used to be supported by an amazing trolly network. It was the only realistic way of getting around. (Contrary to popular belief only a small minority had horses. Farmers, mostly.) When cars came in we naturally got rid of the trollies. If we find ourselves carless again, we're going to need something to replace them with. A town that begun to implement that infrastructure would be way ahead.

I'm not sure 100% what I'm suggesting, but an ideal solution would not be dependent on petroleum. That way you're ready for a couple of different disaster scenarios.

I know we middle-class scoff at public transit, but if we suddenly couldn't afford cars we'd be screaming for it. (And of course, by then it'd be too late.) APL (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the spirit of my answer is not so much weathering a sudden catastrophe downturn, but ensuring that the city will be a desirable place to live or do business after that catastrophe. It's no good mobilizing your police force to enact marshal law, if after the riots die down, your town is completely worthless in the new post-disaster economy. No possible "rainy-day fund" could sustain a town for the long-term.

In that line, I'd say anything the town can do to encourage the development local manufacturing capacity, or food production that's not dependent on outside resources.

For example, the question mentions agricultural resources. If there was a sudden surge in demand for locally grown produce, could those farms retool to meet that demand in a single season? Could they do it without purchasing supplies or seed from big agribusiness? If not, how could we encourage them to adapt their business into something more flexible?

That seems like the sort of thing I would concentrate on if I were on the city council and was attempting to plan for an economic disaster. APL (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say agriculture is a better plan than manufacturing, as it can be more localized. Manufacturing requires both distant suppliers and customers, neither of which may be available after the disaster. In the worst case scenario, the food can be eaten by the town itself. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that depends a lot on the type of manufacturing, but sure. However, notice that most modern agriculture has those same problems. (Which is why I mentioned encouraging them to become more flexible.)

With manufacturing I was thinking that depending on what caused the catastrophe, foreign manufacturing might be inaccessible, which could enrich any area that still has domestic manufacturing capability. But you're right, that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. It's probably still worth considering, though. APL (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If your farmers can no longer run their tractors or obtain fertilizer or pesticide, hopefully the farm can still produce some food, whereas a manufacturing plant missing key components may be entirely useless. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think what you're imagining as a "Farm" has very much relation to a modern fully mechanized farm. Especially of the type found in the mid-west.

It's very common for a farm not to have any seeds on hand. (And not have legal right to grow any new ones, nor the equipment to prepare them in bulk.)

It's very common for a farm to be so highly mechanized that without their equipment the limited staff couldn't tend more than a garden-sized sliver of their farm.

It's also common for a farm to have equipment and consumables specialized for a single crop.

In some parts of the country farms have supposedly overused the soil to the point where they can't function without fertilizer. Replacing or fertilizing that topsoil without the assistance of big agribusiness would be non-trivial.

Sure, the local food co-op could operate no matter what, but so could the local machine shop.

In the past 50 years, modern industrial farming has become as complex, automated, and dependent on outside infrastructure as manufacturing. Their entire business model is based on growing a single crop in enormous quantities, and selling them in bulk. It would be foolish to simply assume they could easily convert to feeding the local community. Even if they don't lose the use of their equipment.

(This might strike you as a potentially serious problem, you wouldn't be the first to have that thought.) APL (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the "no legal right to the seeds" would be much of a concern after the collapse of worldwide civilization. And the soil would still have some fertilizer in it from previous years. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Laws like that are commonly enforced in third world countries, why would USA be any different if it becomes one? In any case, because such laws exist now, the farms are not prepared to process their crops in that manner. They might not even have the storage capacity to hold onto the crops while they try to cobble together such a system. And of course, depending on the season, they might simply not have any crops on hand at all. (This all assumes that they produce the right crops to meet local demand, and not rapeseed or something.)

In any case, I think you're still underestimating how advanced and dependent on infrastructure agriculture has become. Especially in the American mid-west.

Don't think "Farm", think "Fully Mechanized Factory with no roof" APL (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was some crop, like corn, planted, wouldn't it automatically regrow the following year, with no need to replant seeds ? I assume they have some process for removing every trace of a crop, when they intend to plant a different crop. But, assuming the farmers stop doing that, I trust that the plants have some ability to continue their existence without our help. Or have we done like in Jurassic Park, and engineered them to all die off without some ingredient only the seed manufacturer can provide (it was lysine, in the Jurassic Park case) ? I suppose, in the case of plants which reproduce sexually and have separate genders, farmers might only have the female gender (which produces fruit). Sterilized plants and animals would also be possible, but AFAIK, animal farmers, at least, do maintain the ability to build their own stock. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Their is such thing as a volunteer crop where a field is accidentally contaminated with a little of last year's crop.

However, there's a couple of problems that prevent that from happening on a large scale.

1) For most crops, the seeds are in the part they harvest.

2) Some crops have been cultivated so far from their wild ancestors that they can barely reproduce on their own. (Corn is in this category.)

3) In some cases, the crops have to be growing in tidy rows for the equipment to handle them properly. (I suppose this could be solved by drafting hundreds of new workers to do things the old fashioned way.)

I am not a farmer, and I was kind of hoping that someone who was would pipe up to clarify how big of a problem these things would present. I'm particularly curious about farms that are a bit smaller than the massive mid-west food factories, but still larger than the mom&pop farms you see in children's books. How would those mid-sized farms fair in a catastrophe? Could they survive if they got their hands on a season's worth of seed and maybe a few extra laborers?

If I was a city-planner looking to disaster-proof my town, this is the sort of thing I'd be looking into. What preparations could be made so that farms could still produce usable crops if we lost contact with the outside world?

Incidentally, this seems like as good a place as any to mention Global Village Construction Set, which is a fascinating project. APL (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the source of our disagreement here. You were assuming that they would go right on trying to farm as they do now, which, of course, wouldn't work. I assumed they would be smart enough not to harvest the entire crop, but to leave a good portion to "go to seed". And I also assumed they would get people to harvest the food for their own consumption, rather than relying on combine harvesters. As for crops which can't survive on their own, they wouldn't be on their own. There would still be people around to shoe away crows, shoot at grazing deer (and maybe eat them, too), provide some form of irrigation, remove bugs by picking them off individually, if necessary, etc. I would expect a lower level of productivity, reducing until it hits an equilibrium point, which hopefully could still sustain the town.

BTW, I've had some success growing food bought from the grocery store. I've grown potatoes that way, and recently tried some green peppers, which have sprouted just fine. Onions also seem eager to sprout, although I haven't tried to grow those yet. This shows that these crops, at least, aren't that hard to grow, as I don't add fertilizer or use pesticides. StuRat (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think that's feasible, depending on the farm. Just allowing a field to "go to seed" on it's own would be a disaster. If you want the resulting operation to be anything like "Farming" and not "Foraging" you've got to collect the seeds and re-plant them. Anyone who's ever owned a garden knows that. You want a farm, not a meadow.

We seem now to be talking about a very sudden decline, which complicates things further. Crops will only be on hand during parts of the year. And of course, it's entirely common for there to be only a single crop for miles in any direction. Hopefully, that crop will actually be something humans eat, (As opposed to cotton, or rapeseed, or something.) but for long-term local food production, you'd really want a variety. If we assume they lose access to their seed catalogs, they'd better be prepared to process a lot of crop back into seed. And if they lose access to gasoline, they'd better be prepared to recruit and train a huge number of people.

There are probably some farms that could make this transition smoothly. But I'm pretty sure there are a lot of them that wouldn't. Us city folk like to imagine farming as physically hard, but otherwise easy as pie. We like to think that farming must be a no-brainer, after all we've been doing it since the stone age! But it's not. Producing food in useful volume is a complicated process that has to be done right. Throughout history a lot of people who spent their entire lives learning to farm wound up starving to death when they screwed it up. The idea that they could just recruit hundreds of suburbanites to tend their previously mechanized farm, and improvise new processes and new equipment, all without missing a harvest. seems very dubious to me.

Of course, we're both imagining a sort of Mad Max worst-case scenario. In real life, I imagine that the government would do everything possible to prioritize sending fuel to farmers that needed it, and Monsanto would do everything in their power to make sure farmers didn't even have to think about an alternate source for seeds or chemicals.

What I meant initially was that a major economic downturn could make our modern "truck farming" really expensive. In a major fuel crisis, If a town had a plan to transition to locally grown food, it could really save the town's bacon in a purely economic sense. (In a non-Mad-Max disaster, the contractual restrictions on the seed use would still apply. So they'll need seeds from sources that don't impose those restrictions.) APL (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is letting part of the crop go to seed a disaster ? I have an aunt and uncle with several apple trees, and, if they don't do anything, they still get apples each year, although they are small and full of insect damage, but still edible in an emergency. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely you understand the difference between a tree which survives the winter, and most crops which are Annual plants which do not survive the winter and must grow from a new seed every spring? APL (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are most crops annuals ? How about citrus, bananas, etc. (depending on where this town is located) ? StuRat (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The very large majority crops are annuals. Especially ones grown on anything that might be called a "farm". (All your grains, your vegetables, your corn, etc.)

(However, I want to point out that even orchards are carefully planted. Trying to expand an orchard by letting it naturally reproduce wouldn't work. If you want edible fruit, apple trees must be grown from cuttings, not from seeds. Bananas are actually sterile and incapable of producing viable seeds. Most other fruit trees used for food have similar issues. This has nothing to do with surviving an economic downturn, but it's addressing your misconception that food mostly takes care of itself. In fact, most of the food we eat is very far removed from its wild ancestors.) APL (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not talking about letting it "take care of itself", I'm talking about going back to old-fashioned farming, which put in a considerable effort to take care of the crops. The methods don't need to be reinvented, I'm sure grandpa still remembers the old ways. If not, we have books. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And I'm telling you it's not that simple. If the Ford company wanted to make a Model T, it would take them a little time, but they could do it. If they wanted to make hundreds of them (Still a miniscule fraction of their yearly output.) they would have to seriously re-tool. Even though that's the "old ways" they couldn't turn on a dime.

It's the same with agriculture. Sure, anybody could put a little garden on land that was formerly a farm. Maybe even a "big garden" that's a couple of acres. But that wouldn't be nearly enough. Producing food in quantity is a complicated operation. The city slicker idea that farming must be simple because even hick farmers can do it, and besides, plants mostly grow on their own, is dangerously wrong. As is the idea that we could easily go back to where we were at any point in the past. (After all, we're smarter than people from the past.)

(Even more dangerous idea : "I don't need to spend years of my life learning a particular profession. I can read a book about it! Before I starve.")APL (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You listed few specific difficulties. For example, you said letting some of a crop go to seed is a bad idea, but why ? Also note that regarding harvesting, many crops still are harvested manually, largely by migrant workers, so we know this must be possible. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was impossible. Far from it. We've been farming for millennium. Just like it's entirely possible to manufacture Model T fords, or light our homes with Victorian-style gas lamps. What I'm disputing is how easy it would be to suddenly convert back to those old ways, whether it could be done within a single season, and whether it could be done without stockpiling supplies and equipment ahead of time. (And training personnel ahead of time. They'd need a lot of new people!)

As to that specific objection, You seemed to be implying that fields could be replanted for the next year simply by allowing the crops to naturally reproduce so they could be harvested the following year. That would not work. (If that wasn't what you meant, then I misunderstood you.)

Anyway, no point debating me on the subject. There are roughly a zillion books on the precariousness of the USA's agriculture industry. Some of them are even not written by crazy hippies. APL (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it work ? As for training, I expect that only a few people would need much training. People used to pick the produce, for example, probably only need 5 minutes training each. (I've picked apples and berries myself, and that was all I needed.) StuRat (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting very tiresome. I am not personally equipped to educate you in the entire field of agriculture. (I'm certainly no expert myself!)

Feel free to research how agriculture works yourself. Or feel free to continue to imagine that it could be reinvented overnight with no advance preparations.

APL (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "reinvent" implies that the knowledge base has all been lost. I don't think that's the case. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much guys! I have a report to write and I really appreciate all your ideas! =)--Prowress (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case the phrase makes it into your report, you "weather a storm", not "whether" it. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that the concept of a rainy day fund goes back at least to Biblical times, with the prediction of "7 fat years leading to 7 lean years" resulting in the storage of excess grain in the "fat years" to get people through the lean years. Also, as mentioned above, before starting a rainy day fund, the first step should be to pay off their debt, as going into a recession already deep in debt is a recipe for disaster. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

How can you injure yourself by shooting a weapon?

Excluding the completely clueless, who shoot their foot, what can happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.184.181 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The weapon could explode or otherwise malfunction. Mythbusters demonstrated that with a particular very large hand gun if you put your hand in the wrong place the exhaust gas could injure your hand. Shooting a shotgun can cause a bruise to the shoulder (which would be worse if you didn't have it properly braced.) Ricochets where people are hit by there own bullet after it bounces off something are possible. Weapons are designed to be dangerous to the target so they retain danger for the user; proper training will make this less likely. RJFJR (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see Gun safety.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

{EC} It rather depends on the weapon. A shotgun or powerful rifle can give you a nasty bruise on the shoulder, if you don't have the butt pulled-in tight. Some early anti-tank rifles, like the German Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr, were said to break the collar bones of timid users. Similar accusations are levelled at the British PIAT. Early marks of the British Sten were supposed to be able to amputate the top of your finger if it strayed into the ejection port, and were prone to go off accidentally if dropped. I have seen a boy crush the tip of his finger in a break-action air-rifle, by shutting it in the breach. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the completely clueless who have shot themselves in the foot in the past (and maybe still these days). Quite smart soldiers are reputed to have done it in order to have themselves removed from combat zones. HiLo48 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There's also the possibility of a hang fire, where a round does not immediately go off. In this case, I can see someone getting injured by assuming it is a dud and not taking care where they point the gun, or even removing the round and then having it detonate in their hand. That's why after a gun doesn't fire (and it's not obviously a jam), you should always take care to leave the weapon pointed in a safe direction for thirty seconds or so, just in case. 151.163.3.10 (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You could be injured by the object you shoot. For example, an idiot shooting at a street light from below might be injured by falling glass. There's also a very small chance that a bullet fired straight up will fall back down and hit you. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Putting your eye right behind the scope of a weapon with recoil. A lot of new users do this and when the gun recoils the scope comes back and gives them a black eye, or even cuts them.AerobicFox (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

An automatic pistol can bruise or pinch your hand between the thumb and forefinger if you hold it wrong. Hot cartridge cases can give you small burns and in at least one simple blowback sub-machine gun that I know of there was a small risk of the cartridge case bursting when it was ejected.Sjö (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I should've mentioned burns from cartridge cases--I actually just recently made the mistake of standing in just the wrong spot near someone firing a pistol and now have a lovely scar on my neck from where a casing got caught in the neck of my shirt and burned me. It's hardly a life-threatening injury like shooting oneself, but it did sting quite a bit and took several days to heal up. 151.163.3.10 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And the gun barrel itself can get hot from many shots in succession, allowing you to burn yourself on it. StuRat (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Some automatic and semi-auto weapons come in left- and right-handed models. One description I heard of using one of them on the wrong side was that it would "stuff the spent brass up your nose, reach out, grab your ear, and feed it into the breech". --Carnildo (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Very correct. I shoot left handed and was one of the few in my unit that was allowed to fire a Stirling SMG left handed. I had to prove that my stance kept the brass out of my face, and at the same time make the minimum score on the target. My right handed scores were pitiful, so this may have helped as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

When I was a teenager, I shot at an outhouse padlock with my air rifle. The pellet ricocheted off the padlock and hit me on the butt, leaving a bruise. 86.137.136.167 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had the base of my thumb bruised by the handle of a revolver that didn't fit my hand - I have big hands, the revovler handle was small. My mother found it perfectly comfortable to use. It wasn't even a particularly powerful calibre, just a .38 Spl. A shotgun that didn't fit me properly also bruised my cheek once. Roger (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Most common injury is to hearing. (Which is why hearing protection is important.) RJFJR (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Small injuries that I remember from my early shooting days (1993–5):

• I got my thumb too close to a revolver's cylinder gap (between the chamber and the barrel), and the hot gas gave me a deep cut.
• A shell bounced off a wall and was caught by my eyeglasses, burning off a little bit of skin. Coworkers were very curious the next day!
• Got my hand in the way of the recoiling slide of an automatic ...

—Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Drunvalo Melchizedek

Please tell me why Drunvalo Melchizedek is being deleted.I have attended his talks and workships for 10 years and am a better woman for it. Please restore those pages. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST LOVING MEN ON THE PLANET. I can't believe this is happening. I personally have no use for Wikipedia now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumelchizedek (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

They haven't decided whether to delete the Drunvalo_Melchizedek article yet. Here's the place the raise your objections: [1]. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Trust behaviour

I want some contributors or people who showed trust behavior. and their detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.128.214 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Society is based on trust. But if you want examples, then at one end of the spectrum we have Gullibility#Examples and faith....--Shantavira|^{feed me}

I have faith that all televangelists are scum, without any need for proof. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Troll illustration

Can anyone tell me what the object in the upper right of this illustration is supposed to be? To me it looks like a roast turkey. But why that would be part of the illustration, I can't figure out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a dead bird of some sort. See the original. Don't give trolls roast turkeys, Bugs! Don't feed 'em! --Mr.98 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a fish. Airplane food, am I right? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it always looked like a leprechaun with a fish hovering above, to me. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. It's a roast turkey or chicken or maybe a leg of lamb, in a tray or dish of some kind, being offered to the troll. No wonder I always fail Rorschach tests. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just you, that's a bad illustration. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's a roast bird on a platter. It's being held on it's rightmost edge by a hand with a loose-fitting sleeve. (Perhaps like a chef might wear.)

But I agree, it's not a very clear illustration. APL (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, what's on the far left ? The troll's tail ? A knife ? Tails of his jacket ? StuRat (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a color pic that seems to indicate what they are trying to show, and the troll isn't wearing a Leprechaun's hat, either: [2]. StuRat (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, but you're on the trail. I see that the original-original appears to have been uploaded 7 years ago,[3] by a user named Asbestos, who last edited commons in 2007 and last edited wikipedia almost a year ago. He's also an admin. But the bottom line is that he's probably unreachable for comment. It does look like a leprechaun more than it does a troll, and the thing trailing behind is probably coattails... As per the old established symbol of Notre Dame.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's leprechaun-inspired, that thing on the left may be a shillelagh. (With a shillelagh under me arm, And a twinkle in me eye, I'll be off to cause some mischief in the morning ...) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I can fix it if we find a better troll image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This one ? I would need to crop and scale, and don't know if .svg would work well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A simple Google Images search shows that artists' conceptions of trolls are quite various. This one over at the German WP, for instance, isn't all that different from the silhouette in the icon Bugs posted at the beginning of this thread. Deor (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that your troll lacks a brim on his hat. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it somewhat differently, that apparent "hat" might actually be the nose and ears of the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Coming in rather late, but I assumed it to be "Don't feed the trolls".121.44.250.113 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We know what it means, just not sure what is literally shown in the pic. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I found one that has been modified.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)