8 ms·

My first thought was people whose disaster preparedness strategy is guns and ammo before water and food. Imagining violently defending your compound between wee

My first thought was people whose disaster preparedness strategy is guns and ammo before water and food. Imagining violently defending your compound between weekly trips to the grocery store feels very Aboveground to me

textfiles 3y ago
During the LA Riots, some people parked in the parking lot spaces to loot supermarkets.
chrisco255 3y ago
If we're talking some sort of civilizational collapse scenario, you would unquestionably want firearms over food as preparation. First of all you can hunt with a gun. Secondly, you can take other people's food with a gun. Finally you can defend your own food from being taken once you've acquired it by any means necessary.
- cobertos 3y ago
  Doesn't this require a ton of resources (gas and mobility gear, manpower to find and move food, or continuously migrating your living area) and assume everyone you meet will be an enemy you will want to take food from?
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    Based on my reckoning, it would behoove you to hunt first and foremost with a firearm, to secure food for yourself and your family. A single deer could feed a family for a month plus. A cow could feed a family for months. But undoubtedly, skirmishes would happen. Humans are tribal creatures and tribal structures would almost instantly form in such a vacuum.
- courgette 3y ago
  Above firearms, you want a community where trust exists.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    Guns over food seems like a straw man. I was interesting in survivalism a couple decades ago, and every writer I came across put a heavy emphasis on water and food. Guns were something they considered necessary in an environment where you're one of the few with clean water and food. Trying to attack others who'd stocked up wasn't recommended by anyone; if they stocked up on food they'd probably have their own guns. Eventually I read a great little book by someone who'd lived through the currency collapse in Argentina, who said all their rural survivalists got picked off by roving gangs. That doesn't mean the gangs had a great life expectancy either. He advocated staying in town and getting to know your neighbors, setting up a neighborhood watch, helping people start gardens, etc.
    - iisan7 3y ago
      Thanks for mentioning this. A quick search turned up this book, is it the right one? https://archive.org/details/modernsurvivalma0000agui https://archive.org/details/modernsurvivalma0000agui. Fernando Aguirre, 2009. The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse. It would be really interesting to compare/contrast his account from others from Ukraine, Syria, the Balkans. What I hear in your comment is that the advice you heard was about having weapons for a strong defensive posture rather than to be used offensively. I guess the strength of both communities and gangs is in their size, they'll win out over the lone wolf fantasy.
      - DennisP 3y ago
        Yep that's the book!
    - danaris 3y ago
      Serious survivalists know perfectly well that what you'll need is water, food, and skills like farming, spinning, sewing, cleaning, digging latrines, etc. Unfortunately, there are a hell of a lot of people in the US who are essentially "survival LARPers" who imagine themselves as heroic alpha (or, better, sigma!) wolves who fight off thousands of degenerates coming for their canned food. ...Hey, did anyone think to get a can opener?
- dabluecaboose 3y ago
  There is also a point where another gun or another case of ammo doesn't help as much as a case or three of MREs or HDRs
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    A single deer can feed a family for weeks. That only takes one shot.
    - dabluecaboose 3y ago
      That only takes one gun Most people can only fire one gun at a time. There is a point of diminishing returns on stockpiling weapons.
- kcb 3y ago
  Outside of some mass extinction event where we'll probably be dead anyway, I never really understood what exactly the scenario this would be prepping for. Even if all of societies institutions collapsed overnight, the winners are going to be whichever group reorganizes itself quickest. Not to mention some group is likely to inherit a ton of heavy weapons that aren't going to just disappear from the planet overnight.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    This is not an imaginative scenario. Humanity has been through multiple civilizational collapses in its history. The fall of the Roman empire, followed by the Justinian Plague and the famines of 536 AD, is one such example. In the wake of the collapse there were thousands tribes that formed, which gradually recoalesced into modern european nation states (and invariably many of those made a pass at superceding Rome's former glory). It would be likely that many groups would inherit heavy weapons but it's not clear that they would be particularly useful. If victory always went to the most heavily armed, then the U.S. would have handily won the Vietnam war without many casualties. And the Afghanistan war while we're at it.
Rodeoclash 3y ago
Years ago I found a wonderful anecdote on Metafilter about someone who lived through this very situation: https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-getting-worse#2430771 https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-ge...
- jf 3y ago
  Thanks for sharing that, it’s a heartbreaking and yet extremely practical perspective that will stay with me for a long time
karaterobot 3y ago
I'm not sure I know many preppers who have a gun but don't also keep a food store. Plenty of people do the opposite: lots of food and supplies, but no weapons. I think both are bad ideas, but If I had to choose one, I'd want to be in the former group, and then go around and find people in the latter group and see what they had.
- timerol 3y ago
  This is the exact mindset that I was imagining: How are you going to find people in the latter group? Are you planning to drive around, refueling at abundant and well-serviced post-apocalypse gas stations in between your murderous rampages? Are you planning to walk or bike around, before you have any spare food, killing whoever you meet on sight? How long do you expect to live, when every meal is a firefight? Are you really so heartless? What if it's not truly a zombie apocalypse scenario, but the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts and you are stuck in place, but will likely be able to evacuate in a month after roads get reconstructed? Is it worth killing your neighbors then? How about 3 months? What do you do when you go to kill someone for their food and they see that you're in a shitty spot and offer to help? I have no qualms with also having guns and an ammo stockpile, especially for hunting, but that is significantly less important than figuring out water and food.
  - karaterobot 3y ago
    It's more that, while acknowledging that both would be important, in this completely contrived scenario where you have to choose only one, which one would you choose? In a world where your greediest next door neighbor is free to choose guns over canned goods, do you choose canned goods, only to have them taken away at gunpoint? Or, do you choose a gun and go find someone to take canned goods from? Again, a ridiculous thought experiment in the first place.

textfiles 3y ago

During the LA Riots, some people parked in the parking lot spaces to loot supermarkets.

chrisco255 3y ago

If we're talking some sort of civilizational collapse scenario, you would unquestionably want firearms over food as preparation. First of all you can hunt with a gun. Secondly, you can take other people's food with a gun. Finally you can defend your own food from being taken once you've acquired it by any means necessary.

cobertos 3y ago
Doesn't this require a ton of resources (gas and mobility gear, manpower to find and move food, or continuously migrating your living area) and assume everyone you meet will be an enemy you will want to take food from?
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Based on my reckoning, it would behoove you to hunt first and foremost with a firearm, to secure food for yourself and your family. A single deer could feed a family for a month plus. A cow could feed a family for months. But undoubtedly, skirmishes would happen. Humans are tribal creatures and tribal structures would almost instantly form in such a vacuum.
courgette 3y ago
Above firearms, you want a community where trust exists.
- DennisP 3y ago
  Guns over food seems like a straw man. I was interesting in survivalism a couple decades ago, and every writer I came across put a heavy emphasis on water and food. Guns were something they considered necessary in an environment where you're one of the few with clean water and food. Trying to attack others who'd stocked up wasn't recommended by anyone; if they stocked up on food they'd probably have their own guns. Eventually I read a great little book by someone who'd lived through the currency collapse in Argentina, who said all their rural survivalists got picked off by roving gangs. That doesn't mean the gangs had a great life expectancy either. He advocated staying in town and getting to know your neighbors, setting up a neighborhood watch, helping people start gardens, etc.
  - iisan7 3y ago
    Thanks for mentioning this. A quick search turned up this book, is it the right one? https://archive.org/details/modernsurvivalma0000agui https://archive.org/details/modernsurvivalma0000agui. Fernando Aguirre, 2009. The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse. It would be really interesting to compare/contrast his account from others from Ukraine, Syria, the Balkans. What I hear in your comment is that the advice you heard was about having weapons for a strong defensive posture rather than to be used offensively. I guess the strength of both communities and gangs is in their size, they'll win out over the lone wolf fantasy.
    - DennisP 3y ago
      Yep that's the book!
  - danaris 3y ago
    Serious survivalists know perfectly well that what you'll need is water, food, and skills like farming, spinning, sewing, cleaning, digging latrines, etc. Unfortunately, there are a hell of a lot of people in the US who are essentially "survival LARPers" who imagine themselves as heroic alpha (or, better, sigma!) wolves who fight off thousands of degenerates coming for their canned food. ...Hey, did anyone think to get a can opener?
dabluecaboose 3y ago
There is also a point where another gun or another case of ammo doesn't help as much as a case or three of MREs or HDRs
- chrisco255 3y ago
  A single deer can feed a family for weeks. That only takes one shot.
  - dabluecaboose 3y ago
    That only takes one gun Most people can only fire one gun at a time. There is a point of diminishing returns on stockpiling weapons.
kcb 3y ago
Outside of some mass extinction event where we'll probably be dead anyway, I never really understood what exactly the scenario this would be prepping for. Even if all of societies institutions collapsed overnight, the winners are going to be whichever group reorganizes itself quickest. Not to mention some group is likely to inherit a ton of heavy weapons that aren't going to just disappear from the planet overnight.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  This is not an imaginative scenario. Humanity has been through multiple civilizational collapses in its history. The fall of the Roman empire, followed by the Justinian Plague and the famines of 536 AD, is one such example. In the wake of the collapse there were thousands tribes that formed, which gradually recoalesced into modern european nation states (and invariably many of those made a pass at superceding Rome's former glory). It would be likely that many groups would inherit heavy weapons but it's not clear that they would be particularly useful. If victory always went to the most heavily armed, then the U.S. would have handily won the Vietnam war without many casualties. And the Afghanistan war while we're at it.

Rodeoclash 3y ago

Years ago I found a wonderful anecdote on Metafilter about someone who lived through this very situation: https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-getting-worse#2430771 https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-ge...

jf 3y ago
Thanks for sharing that, it’s a heartbreaking and yet extremely practical perspective that will stay with me for a long time

karaterobot 3y ago

I'm not sure I know many preppers who have a gun but don't also keep a food store. Plenty of people do the opposite: lots of food and supplies, but no weapons. I think both are bad ideas, but If I had to choose one, I'd want to be in the former group, and then go around and find people in the latter group and see what they had.

timerol 3y ago
This is the exact mindset that I was imagining: How are you going to find people in the latter group? Are you planning to drive around, refueling at abundant and well-serviced post-apocalypse gas stations in between your murderous rampages? Are you planning to walk or bike around, before you have any spare food, killing whoever you meet on sight? How long do you expect to live, when every meal is a firefight? Are you really so heartless? What if it's not truly a zombie apocalypse scenario, but the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts and you are stuck in place, but will likely be able to evacuate in a month after roads get reconstructed? Is it worth killing your neighbors then? How about 3 months? What do you do when you go to kill someone for their food and they see that you're in a shitty spot and offer to help? I have no qualms with also having guns and an ammo stockpile, especially for hunting, but that is significantly less important than figuring out water and food.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  It's more that, while acknowledging that both would be important, in this completely contrived scenario where you have to choose only one, which one would you choose? In a world where your greediest next door neighbor is free to choose guns over canned goods, do you choose canned goods, only to have them taken away at gunpoint? Or, do you choose a gun and go find someone to take canned goods from? Again, a ridiculous thought experiment in the first place.