5 ms·

Isn't the point of the guns that kind of person stockpiles specifically to prevent people taking them? If you're already at the point where you're violently tak

Isn't the point of the guns that kind of person stockpiles specifically to prevent people taking them? If you're already at the point where you're violently taking things, then they've pretty effectively made themselves much less appealing targets than like, supermarkets or great depression survivors.

Retric 4y ago
The gun stockpile itself is a valuable resource and being armed is of little use defensively.
- locutous 4y ago
  Being armed is a dramatically effective way to improve defensibility. How many effective defensive fortifications can you name that ran intentionally without any arms because they are of "little use"?
- Anderkent 4y ago
  how do you figure it's of little use? big difference between breaking in to loot a house you know is unarmed, versus one known to be armed and possibly keeping watch
- mgarfias 4y ago
  Source for the latter statement?
  - Retric 4y ago
    Vietnam ambushes, WWI trench warfare, etc. It seems very counterintuitive casualties where often lower for the attackers and counter offensive than the defenders.
    - locutous 4y ago
      First, an ambush is not a traditional attacker role. The ambusher has the pre-prepared position and is leveraging an intelligence advantage. A counter attack similarly isn't assaulting a prepared position. Otherwise this is an ignorant view. Attackers can have advantages because of initiative. They can pick their place, time, and methods, find the weakest point, etc. They can also choose to not attack at all. Which they do all the time. The number a times attackers have been repelled and destroyed despite possessing the initiative is innumerable. Assaulting a prepared defensive position in it's strength is widely acknowledged to be a really stupid idea and you don't do it unless your other options are worse.
      - Retric 4y ago
        And yet after the invention of the gun attacking a prepared defensive positions often results in fewer casualties. Defensive structures offset but don’t eliminate the advantage of initiative, especially when you start talking about a lone defender who needs to sleep etc.
        locutous 4y ago
        Manoeuver has always been useful. Modern mobility and arms haven't changed that. Gaining superior firepower or leverage at the decision point is the real take away, not who is attacking or defending. Fixed structures are always an asset, but you still have to recognize that it doesn't eliminate the need for intelligence and superior strategy. Your conclusion about defense being essentially useless is still dead wrong. Once the first few home invasions, rapings, and pillagings of sleeping residences have occurred. Word will spread. The would be invaders will encounter a round the clock watch setup by a neighborhood or family that invited all their cousins and can afford a 24/7 watch, with dogs, home made alarms, and man traps. And those attackers will have the fight of their lives on their hands. Once their surprise element is gone, they lose the initiative to things they can't anticipate without serious new intelligence and all advantage is now reversed and you enter the counter attacking and ambush scenarios which you pointed out, are very effective.
        4y ago
- takoid 4y ago
  Why do police, soldiers, etc. arm themselves if it is of such little use defensively?
  - unusualmonkey 4y ago
    Police and soldiers do a lot more than just arm themselves.
    - takoid 4y ago
      What does that have to do with the defensive effectiveness of being armed?
- quantified 4y ago
  The value of the stockpile comes from the fact that being armed is useful. You may be saying that whoever is coming for you has enough firepower and training to make your arms irrelevant. In which case your stockpile is just trade goods?
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s not about skills, let’s take two people of equal training. A is living his life in a fortified location with a huge stoke pile of guns and tons of ammunition. B has a rifle, time, and the element of surprise. Who do you think has better odds? How about if B has friends who also want what A has? Don’t get me wrong defensive positions are useful, they are simply less useful than groups of people working together. The best prep is a few supplies and a community of people ready and able to support each other think walled town not fortified nuclear bunkers unless you’re actually willing to live underground and have a lifetime of supplies at which point hiding is more effective than guns.
    - kazinator 4y ago
      I would agree that a single person defending a fortification probably not benefit from more than, say, two or three guns. One gun that has a decent automatic magazine size, and fast reloading, plus lots and lots of ammo. You need backup equipment in the face of possible failure.
    - quantified 4y ago
      A group or community that has some arms is definitely in a better position than a loner with an arsenal. A group with an arsenal and good social skills to make alliances with other groups, and the tactical abilities to acquire whatever they lack and defend themselves from others, will be in the best position. There's probably an ideal minimum of ammo to go with the guns. But more ammo is better.
- simonebrunozzi 4y ago
  Absolutely the opposite. If you have time to prepare your defense position, the effect of your firearms would allow you to beat larger crowds/enemies.
  - Retric 4y ago
    WWI trench warfare casualties often favored the attackers. And that’s large numbers of trained men in defensive positions with machine gun support.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      Why do you say this? The front lines were almost static and only moved small distances at huge cost, suggesting a defence advantage.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Analysts of actual WWI battles by experts. Don’t get me wrong early in the war attacking in daylight over no man’s land was ruinous, but tactics evolved and eventually favored the attack and counter attack. Not that post apocalyptic battles will involve artillery and tanks, but it is still informative.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        Have you got a link or book or something on this?
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      WW1 trench warfare was dominated by artillery, which caused the majority of casualties, more than machine guns, rifles and disease combined. That is why casualty rates favored the attacker - they were sweeping up the suppressed remains after an overwhelming artillery barrage. The same applies in modern warzones, what works as a defensive position against a gun-armed mob doesn't necessarily work against infantry with military weapons including mortars and grenade launchers, and vice versa - if you know your opponents don't have proper equipment, you can effectively make deadly defensive positions which modern militaries wouldn't be able to use against their opponents.
hotpotamus 4y ago
You've got to sleep eventually and I wonder how well all your fancy security systems will do once us-east-1 is down? There's actually already a story of one (insane) prepper type infiltrating a Kentucky state representative's bunker to take it for himself (and killing a person in the process). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/kentucky-bunker-civil-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/kentucky-bunker-civil-... Though obviously advertising that you have a high-end survival bunker is probably breaking rule one of survival bunkers.
- delecti 4y ago
  I'm a techy leftist opposed to guns. I'm absolutely not talking about myself. And I don't mean a fancy security system. I mean a paranoid prepper with a basement full of canned food and a stocked gun case. The kind of person who is itching to live through a zombie apocalypse, and would eagerly start shooting at people that even vaguely suspected were coming for their stockpile. Their guns are a deterrent to taking their food. That's it.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    I didn't think you meant yourself, but yes, the prototypical prepper in the basement with an apocalypse stockpile. It'll hardly be an impregnable fortress.
stfp 4y ago
One way to approach answering this question is looking at history. Do individual people with a nice stockpile and contemporary weapons tend to survive the collapse of their civilizations (or even local, short-term famines for that matter)? I don't think so. For example, in Europe the social/physical structures that successfully faced these situations were walled cities & towns. Castles. Entire communities and decades of planning and construction. IMO, no way this scales down to a single household - I'm chuckling right now picturing a knight and their family in a house-sized castle. Another angle: if things get bad even just food wise, people who have nothing to lose will keep coming - starving people who will die unless they get to your resources. To me prepping to survive by yourself is a dumb fantasy and a waste of resources that would be much better spent building resilient communities.
- delecti 4y ago
  Are there instances of individual people (or small families) with stockpiles of weaponry in civilizations that collapsed? Yes, as you point out, there are historical nobles with armed guards in their castle/fort/estate, or just cities with militias, but I don't know of anything historically comparable to a modern prepper with a dozen guns and thousands of rounds for them. And even if there were, no amount of swords makes 1-5 people a match for a couple dozen assailants, but 1-5 people with loaded guns are much more of a deterrent. And I agree that a community spending their time and resources working together is likely way more effective, but that doesn't mean the prepper's stockpile is easy pickings.
- foogazi 4y ago
  > IMO, no way this scales down to a single household - I'm chuckling right now picturing a knight and their family in a house-sized castle. You just have to outlast them Do you want to be killed by the 1st zombie or the 20th ? Only way to survive is to delay death
x86x87 4y ago
it works to a certain degree but what's your plan for sleep? what about if an organized group is trying to get to your supplies? so guns work to prevent simple attempts, in the early stages. when you are in the anything goes stage you need a community and a way to be protected and protect others.

Retric 4y ago

The gun stockpile itself is a valuable resource and being armed is of little use defensively.

locutous 4y ago
Being armed is a dramatically effective way to improve defensibility. How many effective defensive fortifications can you name that ran intentionally without any arms because they are of "little use"?
Anderkent 4y ago
how do you figure it's of little use? big difference between breaking in to loot a house you know is unarmed, versus one known to be armed and possibly keeping watch
mgarfias 4y ago
Source for the latter statement?
- Retric 4y ago
  Vietnam ambushes, WWI trench warfare, etc. It seems very counterintuitive casualties where often lower for the attackers and counter offensive than the defenders.
  - locutous 4y ago
    First, an ambush is not a traditional attacker role. The ambusher has the pre-prepared position and is leveraging an intelligence advantage. A counter attack similarly isn't assaulting a prepared position. Otherwise this is an ignorant view. Attackers can have advantages because of initiative. They can pick their place, time, and methods, find the weakest point, etc. They can also choose to not attack at all. Which they do all the time. The number a times attackers have been repelled and destroyed despite possessing the initiative is innumerable. Assaulting a prepared defensive position in it's strength is widely acknowledged to be a really stupid idea and you don't do it unless your other options are worse.
    - Retric 4y ago
      And yet after the invention of the gun attacking a prepared defensive positions often results in fewer casualties. Defensive structures offset but don’t eliminate the advantage of initiative, especially when you start talking about a lone defender who needs to sleep etc.
      - locutous 4y ago
        Manoeuver has always been useful. Modern mobility and arms haven't changed that. Gaining superior firepower or leverage at the decision point is the real take away, not who is attacking or defending. Fixed structures are always an asset, but you still have to recognize that it doesn't eliminate the need for intelligence and superior strategy. Your conclusion about defense being essentially useless is still dead wrong. Once the first few home invasions, rapings, and pillagings of sleeping residences have occurred. Word will spread. The would be invaders will encounter a round the clock watch setup by a neighborhood or family that invited all their cousins and can afford a 24/7 watch, with dogs, home made alarms, and man traps. And those attackers will have the fight of their lives on their hands. Once their surprise element is gone, they lose the initiative to things they can't anticipate without serious new intelligence and all advantage is now reversed and you enter the counter attacking and ambush scenarios which you pointed out, are very effective.
        4y ago
takoid 4y ago
Why do police, soldiers, etc. arm themselves if it is of such little use defensively?
- unusualmonkey 4y ago
  Police and soldiers do a lot more than just arm themselves.
  - takoid 4y ago
    What does that have to do with the defensive effectiveness of being armed?
quantified 4y ago
The value of the stockpile comes from the fact that being armed is useful. You may be saying that whoever is coming for you has enough firepower and training to make your arms irrelevant. In which case your stockpile is just trade goods?
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s not about skills, let’s take two people of equal training. A is living his life in a fortified location with a huge stoke pile of guns and tons of ammunition. B has a rifle, time, and the element of surprise. Who do you think has better odds? How about if B has friends who also want what A has? Don’t get me wrong defensive positions are useful, they are simply less useful than groups of people working together. The best prep is a few supplies and a community of people ready and able to support each other think walled town not fortified nuclear bunkers unless you’re actually willing to live underground and have a lifetime of supplies at which point hiding is more effective than guns.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    I would agree that a single person defending a fortification probably not benefit from more than, say, two or three guns. One gun that has a decent automatic magazine size, and fast reloading, plus lots and lots of ammo. You need backup equipment in the face of possible failure.
  - quantified 4y ago
    A group or community that has some arms is definitely in a better position than a loner with an arsenal. A group with an arsenal and good social skills to make alliances with other groups, and the tactical abilities to acquire whatever they lack and defend themselves from others, will be in the best position. There's probably an ideal minimum of ammo to go with the guns. But more ammo is better.
simonebrunozzi 4y ago
Absolutely the opposite. If you have time to prepare your defense position, the effect of your firearms would allow you to beat larger crowds/enemies.
- Retric 4y ago
  WWI trench warfare casualties often favored the attackers. And that’s large numbers of trained men in defensive positions with machine gun support.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Why do you say this? The front lines were almost static and only moved small distances at huge cost, suggesting a defence advantage.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Analysts of actual WWI battles by experts. Don’t get me wrong early in the war attacking in daylight over no man’s land was ruinous, but tactics evolved and eventually favored the attack and counter attack. Not that post apocalyptic battles will involve artillery and tanks, but it is still informative.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        Have you got a link or book or something on this?
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    WW1 trench warfare was dominated by artillery, which caused the majority of casualties, more than machine guns, rifles and disease combined. That is why casualty rates favored the attacker - they were sweeping up the suppressed remains after an overwhelming artillery barrage. The same applies in modern warzones, what works as a defensive position against a gun-armed mob doesn't necessarily work against infantry with military weapons including mortars and grenade launchers, and vice versa - if you know your opponents don't have proper equipment, you can effectively make deadly defensive positions which modern militaries wouldn't be able to use against their opponents.

hotpotamus 4y ago

You've got to sleep eventually and I wonder how well all your fancy security systems will do once us-east-1 is down? There's actually already a story of one (insane) prepper type infiltrating a Kentucky state representative's bunker to take it for himself (and killing a person in the process). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/kentucky-bunker-civil-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/kentucky-bunker-civil-... Though obviously advertising that you have a high-end survival bunker is probably breaking rule one of survival bunkers.

delecti 4y ago
I'm a techy leftist opposed to guns. I'm absolutely not talking about myself. And I don't mean a fancy security system. I mean a paranoid prepper with a basement full of canned food and a stocked gun case. The kind of person who is itching to live through a zombie apocalypse, and would eagerly start shooting at people that even vaguely suspected were coming for their stockpile. Their guns are a deterrent to taking their food. That's it.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I didn't think you meant yourself, but yes, the prototypical prepper in the basement with an apocalypse stockpile. It'll hardly be an impregnable fortress.

stfp 4y ago

One way to approach answering this question is looking at history. Do individual people with a nice stockpile and contemporary weapons tend to survive the collapse of their civilizations (or even local, short-term famines for that matter)? I don't think so. For example, in Europe the social/physical structures that successfully faced these situations were walled cities & towns. Castles. Entire communities and decades of planning and construction. IMO, no way this scales down to a single household - I'm chuckling right now picturing a knight and their family in a house-sized castle. Another angle: if things get bad even just food wise, people who have nothing to lose will keep coming - starving people who will die unless they get to your resources. To me prepping to survive by yourself is a dumb fantasy and a waste of resources that would be much better spent building resilient communities.

delecti 4y ago
Are there instances of individual people (or small families) with stockpiles of weaponry in civilizations that collapsed? Yes, as you point out, there are historical nobles with armed guards in their castle/fort/estate, or just cities with militias, but I don't know of anything historically comparable to a modern prepper with a dozen guns and thousands of rounds for them. And even if there were, no amount of swords makes 1-5 people a match for a couple dozen assailants, but 1-5 people with loaded guns are much more of a deterrent. And I agree that a community spending their time and resources working together is likely way more effective, but that doesn't mean the prepper's stockpile is easy pickings.
foogazi 4y ago
> IMO, no way this scales down to a single household - I'm chuckling right now picturing a knight and their family in a house-sized castle. You just have to outlast them Do you want to be killed by the 1st zombie or the 20th ? Only way to survive is to delay death

x86x87 4y ago

it works to a certain degree but what's your plan for sleep? what about if an organized group is trying to get to your supplies? so guns work to prevent simple attempts, in the early stages. when you are in the anything goes stage you need a community and a way to be protected and protect others.