3 ms·

The textbook "survivalist" (the term prior to prepper, see the literature going back to the 1970s) answer to this is to have one or more "retreats", places you

by hga 12y ago

The textbook "survivalist" (the term prior to prepper, see the literature going back to the 1970s) answer to this is to have one or more "retreats", places you can flee to. Such as relatives living in less populated places, where you can offer skills and manual labor to help out. Or a "vacation home" that's a bit more than that. Sheltering in place can have its advantages, but if you're living in NYC, it's game over, you're not even allowed to effectively defend yourself (less than 60K each licenses to own handguns and long guns, numbers personally counted by myself after the lists were leaked). In any big city it sounds marginal (in sizing ammo required, one of the best survivalist, Bruce Clayton, asked "How many firefights do you expect to survive?"), then again, it actually takes much less than you might think to keep people alive. Not very many tractor trailers filled with wheat and corn (e.g. "downshift" and feed people what we've been feeding animals), so of course all this depends on the shape of the disaster.

pavel_lishin 12y ago
Sure, but this presumes that you've already done the prepwork - my comment was based on my current status, now. I don't have anyplace nearby I could retreat to. I'm also not sure how much of a game-over New York is - sure, I don't have a gun to defend myself, but statistically, how many of us own guns anyway? If I were still living in Dallas, or Austin, the number of guns I have at hand would be the same as now - zero. And one small advantage of NYC is that my neighbors probably won't be coming at me with rifles and shotguns, either. I think that all these equations change very rapidly based on how much preparation you've done. I've done zero.
- hga 12y ago
  Presumably some of those neighbors you know, if you were in Dallas or Austin, would legally own guns. Statistically, at least half the country owns guns (add survey results to reasonable estimates of "none of your business" non-responses, double check with NICS sales plus new firearms production and imports, which are closely tracked for tax reasons, vs. the New Math of gun grabbers which would have the average gun owner's armory at around $100K per my estimate). It's estimated there are at least 2 million illegally owned guns in NYC, and while plenty are not in the hands of true "bad guys", plenty obviously are, and unless your group can stay off the radar while everyone else around you is starving, which will get hard as people get thinner ... someone better armed will come knocking sooner or later. And agreed to the preparation. But do you truly know no one in "flyover country" who might take you in?
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    The problem with flyover country is that you typically have to fly into it - in case of a great disaster, my odds of walking to Indiana aren't great.
    - hga 12y ago
      It's been my personal observation that "flyover country" includes upstate NY, which doesn't feel materially different from my corner of SW Missouri. But of course what really counts is where those relatives or friends are in comparison to you, and if you're alert and decisive enough to not miss "the last train out", assuming that's a possibility.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > And one small advantage of NYC is that my neighbors probably won't be coming at me with rifles and shotguns, either. No, they'll be forming packs and gangs and groups. And though you see differently in movies, once there are more than about 3-4 of them who are intent on killing you, you will have zero chance of living through that. They won't need guns to do this. Baseball bats and knives and whatever else they can get their hands on, and you'll be done for. Guns would make such gangs slightly more dangerous for you, but at the same time they make you much more dangerous to them.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    This is verging on "Turner Diaries" level of prepper pandering.
    - pavel_lishin 12y ago
      Yeah, I can't decide whether it's just simple escalation - if we all have bats, it's not significantly different if we all have guns - but then again, guns do amplify power much more, so attacking someone who only has a bat when you've only got bats seems much safer than attacking someone with a gun when you've also got guns.
      - hga 12y ago
        The combination of rifles "of military utility" (e.g. a turn of the last century bolt action service rifle, or at least the design, such as this last remaining or about used up variety: http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=Mosin+Nagant http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=Mosin+Nagant), knowing how to use them, and having them sighted in, is much, much more than an escalation. Against the untrained, or those with only shotguns or handguns, as long as you don't let them get within 100 or so yards of you, you're pretty safe and they're bleeding on the ground or have fled. Although as the previously mentioned Bruce Clayton pointed out, budget some of your money for food for other people. You need more people pulling triggers than yourself.

by hga 12y ago

pavel_lishin 12y ago

Sure, but this presumes that you've already done the prepwork - my comment was based on my current status, now. I don't have anyplace nearby I could retreat to. I'm also not sure how much of a game-over New York is - sure, I don't have a gun to defend myself, but statistically, how many of us own guns anyway? If I were still living in Dallas, or Austin, the number of guns I have at hand would be the same as now - zero. And one small advantage of NYC is that my neighbors probably won't be coming at me with rifles and shotguns, either. I think that all these equations change very rapidly based on how much preparation you've done. I've done zero.

hga 12y ago
Presumably some of those neighbors you know, if you were in Dallas or Austin, would legally own guns. Statistically, at least half the country owns guns (add survey results to reasonable estimates of "none of your business" non-responses, double check with NICS sales plus new firearms production and imports, which are closely tracked for tax reasons, vs. the New Math of gun grabbers which would have the average gun owner's armory at around $100K per my estimate). It's estimated there are at least 2 million illegally owned guns in NYC, and while plenty are not in the hands of true "bad guys", plenty obviously are, and unless your group can stay off the radar while everyone else around you is starving, which will get hard as people get thinner ... someone better armed will come knocking sooner or later. And agreed to the preparation. But do you truly know no one in "flyover country" who might take you in?
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  The problem with flyover country is that you typically have to fly into it - in case of a great disaster, my odds of walking to Indiana aren't great.
  - hga 12y ago
    It's been my personal observation that "flyover country" includes upstate NY, which doesn't feel materially different from my corner of SW Missouri. But of course what really counts is where those relatives or friends are in comparison to you, and if you're alert and decisive enough to not miss "the last train out", assuming that's a possibility.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> And one small advantage of NYC is that my neighbors probably won't be coming at me with rifles and shotguns, either. No, they'll be forming packs and gangs and groups. And though you see differently in movies, once there are more than about 3-4 of them who are intent on killing you, you will have zero chance of living through that. They won't need guns to do this. Baseball bats and knives and whatever else they can get their hands on, and you'll be done for. Guns would make such gangs slightly more dangerous for you, but at the same time they make you much more dangerous to them.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  This is verging on "Turner Diaries" level of prepper pandering.
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    Yeah, I can't decide whether it's just simple escalation - if we all have bats, it's not significantly different if we all have guns - but then again, guns do amplify power much more, so attacking someone who only has a bat when you've only got bats seems much safer than attacking someone with a gun when you've also got guns.
    - hga 12y ago
      The combination of rifles "of military utility" (e.g. a turn of the last century bolt action service rifle, or at least the design, such as this last remaining or about used up variety: http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=Mosin+Nagant http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=Mosin+Nagant), knowing how to use them, and having them sighted in, is much, much more than an escalation. Against the untrained, or those with only shotguns or handguns, as long as you don't let them get within 100 or so yards of you, you're pretty safe and they're bleeding on the ground or have fled. Although as the previously mentioned Bruce Clayton pointed out, budget some of your money for food for other people. You need more people pulling triggers than yourself.