4 ms·

I don’t care about the overly sensitive downvotes because HN has been turning more into Reddit anyhow but - you left out firearm. In any “without rule of law”

I don’t care about the overly sensitive downvotes because HN has been turning more into Reddit anyhow but - you left out firearm. In any “without rule of law” scenario you need a real means of protection. While this may be a shocker to some people if you try and fight with a knife, even if you have edged weapons training, there is a great chance you are going to bleed as well. I hope people who have had the state tell them they don’t need a firearm never have to figure out that should have been their own choice to make.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Wasn't the US right to bear arms mainly aimed to overthrow a government in case it sucks? Well now's the chance. But for the US, I agree, I don't trust Americans to be civilized when the shit hits the fan - it's every man for himself there. Which is why the country is failing.
czechdeveloper 8y ago
I did, because I don't own one and focusing on guns discourages people from preparing even for basic service disruption. Focusing on guns just make it look like prepping is just for "gun-nuts" (as much as I don't share that opinion).
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  That’s the thing though, it doesn’t matter how much stuff you have, without a way to keep it you won’t keep it. In a without rule of law scenario there is no one coming to help, say to protect you from someone bigger stronger faster or more clever than you that did not have a prepper foresight. Que the famous Samuel Colt quote, right?
3chelon 8y ago
And this is the problem with preppers in general. I don't know if it's too much Walking Dead or just a mindset they have to start with, but as someone else pointed out they seem to be far more obsessed with guns than with clean water, sanitation and heating. Guns aren't very common in my country so I'm not worried about gun-toting locals rampaging around. Sure, a few might raid a military base or a farmer's shotgun cabinet, but statistically I think my family would be under far more threat from hypothermia, cholera or an infected scratch.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  What is it you think happens to your police and government guns when there is no rule of law? I’ll give you a hint, there’s a reason the Taliban was walking around with Soviet era AK-47s, and Isis was walking around with US-made M-16s.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    I'm going to post this elsewhere in the thread, but a comment on Metafilter from someone who survived the siege of Sarajevo: https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-getting-worse#2430771 https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-ge... "Guns and weapons helped no one directly and were even of little to no use in the defense of Sarajevo, since they were toys compared to the shells, bombs and high-powered armaments of the attacking forces."
    - manfredo 8y ago
      There's a broad category of social turmoil that is life threatening but not quite the magnitude of "professional military starts attacking citizens." Say bands of political extremists of whatever flavor start attacking towns, or other smaller-scale (in comparison to outright civil war) acts of violence erupt. I don't dispute your anecdotes from the Balkans, but using it as blanket proof to say that firearms won't ever be of benefit in times of civil unrest is not effective.
      - 3chelon 8y ago
        You are right, but that's not really an apocalypse but a localised civil war. Admittedly, it would be good to be prepared for that, but I think leaving the area altogether would be a more optimal solution than grabbing weapons.
        manfredo 8y ago
        Sure, but leaving the area means abandoning a place of shelter, community, and potentially a decent chunk of supplies. I agree, plenty of disasters wouldn't warrant use of firearms, but having them and not needing them is considerably better than needing them and not having them. Seems like one is strictly better than the other. I suppose possession of unnecessary firarms could risk having them stolen or otherwise ending up in the hands of people doing harm - but seeing as 30-40% of US households possess firearms, this is a moot point.
ahje 8y ago
Having access to a ranged weapon is defenitely a plus. Even if complete absence of law and order is a somewhat unlikely scenario, a ranged weapon will also make things like hunting for food easier. In many places, there are quite heavy restrictions on firearms, and obtaining one without breaking the law might simply not be legal for everyone. Most such countries don't outlaw the use of bows and arrows though...
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  My country apparently doesn't outlaw possession of a flame thrower. Not sure if it would be helpful in the case of civilizational collapse, though.
  - ahje 8y ago
    It can be used for heating canned food, which is a plus I guess. :D
carry_bit 8y ago
There are a wide range of scenarios you can prepare for; not all of them require a firearm. As long as you what you're preparing for, that's fine.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Isn’t an effective means of defense for yourself and your family a high priority in most scenarios?

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

Wasn't the US right to bear arms mainly aimed to overthrow a government in case it sucks? Well now's the chance. But for the US, I agree, I don't trust Americans to be civilized when the shit hits the fan - it's every man for himself there. Which is why the country is failing.

czechdeveloper 8y ago

I did, because I don't own one and focusing on guns discourages people from preparing even for basic service disruption. Focusing on guns just make it look like prepping is just for "gun-nuts" (as much as I don't share that opinion).

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
That’s the thing though, it doesn’t matter how much stuff you have, without a way to keep it you won’t keep it. In a without rule of law scenario there is no one coming to help, say to protect you from someone bigger stronger faster or more clever than you that did not have a prepper foresight. Que the famous Samuel Colt quote, right?

3chelon 8y ago

And this is the problem with preppers in general. I don't know if it's too much Walking Dead or just a mindset they have to start with, but as someone else pointed out they seem to be far more obsessed with guns than with clean water, sanitation and heating. Guns aren't very common in my country so I'm not worried about gun-toting locals rampaging around. Sure, a few might raid a military base or a farmer's shotgun cabinet, but statistically I think my family would be under far more threat from hypothermia, cholera or an infected scratch.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
What is it you think happens to your police and government guns when there is no rule of law? I’ll give you a hint, there’s a reason the Taliban was walking around with Soviet era AK-47s, and Isis was walking around with US-made M-16s.
- pjc50 8y ago
  I'm going to post this elsewhere in the thread, but a comment on Metafilter from someone who survived the siege of Sarajevo: https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-getting-worse#2430771 https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-ge... "Guns and weapons helped no one directly and were even of little to no use in the defense of Sarajevo, since they were toys compared to the shells, bombs and high-powered armaments of the attacking forces."
  - manfredo 8y ago
    There's a broad category of social turmoil that is life threatening but not quite the magnitude of "professional military starts attacking citizens." Say bands of political extremists of whatever flavor start attacking towns, or other smaller-scale (in comparison to outright civil war) acts of violence erupt. I don't dispute your anecdotes from the Balkans, but using it as blanket proof to say that firearms won't ever be of benefit in times of civil unrest is not effective.
    - 3chelon 8y ago
      You are right, but that's not really an apocalypse but a localised civil war. Admittedly, it would be good to be prepared for that, but I think leaving the area altogether would be a more optimal solution than grabbing weapons.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Sure, but leaving the area means abandoning a place of shelter, community, and potentially a decent chunk of supplies. I agree, plenty of disasters wouldn't warrant use of firearms, but having them and not needing them is considerably better than needing them and not having them. Seems like one is strictly better than the other. I suppose possession of unnecessary firarms could risk having them stolen or otherwise ending up in the hands of people doing harm - but seeing as 30-40% of US households possess firearms, this is a moot point.

ahje 8y ago

Having access to a ranged weapon is defenitely a plus. Even if complete absence of law and order is a somewhat unlikely scenario, a ranged weapon will also make things like hunting for food easier. In many places, there are quite heavy restrictions on firearms, and obtaining one without breaking the law might simply not be legal for everyone. Most such countries don't outlaw the use of bows and arrows though...

TeMPOraL 8y ago
My country apparently doesn't outlaw possession of a flame thrower. Not sure if it would be helpful in the case of civilizational collapse, though.
- ahje 8y ago
  It can be used for heating canned food, which is a plus I guess. :D

carry_bit 8y ago

There are a wide range of scenarios you can prepare for; not all of them require a firearm. As long as you what you're preparing for, that's fine.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Isn’t an effective means of defense for yourself and your family a high priority in most scenarios?