I've got a few high tech friends (and myself) that have slowly become more and more of the mindset to be self sufficient.

Two things probably have made me initially think more about it. First, the predictions of a major subduction earthquake here in Oregon, and knowing I'd be somewhat on my own for a while after that. And the other thing is Burning Man, which has taught me about self sufficiency and how one can actually have their cake and eat it too now and then.

Then there are guns. I've got two, and both are very much antiques. One a Krag 30-40 from 1908, the other a 1946 Springfield M1903. Both military issue, bolt action, and beautifully crafted. And both quite functional, powerful, and deadly items.

Why do I have guns? First because they are historical (used to work on a WW2 era video game). Then there's in theory hunting if I had to. Then there's protection. I can't deny that yes, I would consider using them if me and mine were truly threatened.

My only rule of thumb for any of this is never shall it say "Tactical" in the product name or the seller. Nor shall it have camo pattern.

▲

dlcarrier 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One of those things that I have trouble mentally placing in the correct time period is the standardization of the cartridges that we still use today. When they were developed, tractors were still using metal tires and blood type testing for transfusions didn't exist yet. Living on the West coast usually meant that you had to be self sufficient. Some of my ancestors at the time lived in Idaho in a hole they dug in the ground, that they put a roof over. They had another similar dugout that they filled with ice blocks during the winter, to sell in the summer for some income. Most of them were sustenance farmers. One of my great grandparents had multiple acres in Van Nuys to grow enough food and raise enough rabbits to live off of. That land would be worth millions now, but back then it was what you needed to get by. Being rich would mean you had nicer clothes and a bigger house and servants and didn't have to grow your own food, but even the rich rarely had electric power, and when they did it was only routed to lamp sockets.

▲

RRWagner 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do many people think that with their single assault rifle or other weap9n, that they would successfully defend against one or more truckloads of vandals looking to steal whatever they have stored up "self-sufficiently"? History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.

▲

onion2k 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.

I don't think that's true. I imagine the people with the highest chance of survival are the ones whose governing/ruling people seek peace and the rule law quickest. Second would be people who flee to the nearest safe and lawful area. A fortification is probably the third best option if you can't have either of the first, but the probability of that structure keeping you alive is very low, especially if the conflict lasts long enough to become a siege. Entire cities managed to hold out from sieges that lasted for years, but the ordinary people inside did not.

▲

xeromal 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Funny the person you replied to mentioned an antique rifle and then you ranted about assault weapons while censoring yourself?

Rifles are great for many things aside from roving bandits. First thing is that hunting is an excellent capability to have and rifles are much easier to use than bows. Another thing is the deterrence one provides. If you're moving around the end times with just your fists, you're an easier target than someone equipped. The final bit is if your point is right and living in a fortified structure is the way to go, someone with a rifle and the knowhow to use it is going to be immensely more useful to the group than someone who just knows how to use a computer. In the absence of law, you will be obliged to defend yourself whether that's individually or in a large group.

▲

dlcarrier 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People stockpiling only "weap9n"s aren't going to last near as long as people stockpiling only food.

In real life melee weapons are readily available and far more overpowered that you'd think, but what matters more is that robbery is risky. Winning most of the time isn't enough; you'd need to win all of the time.

▲

preciousoo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It depends on if the people with weapons can find the people with food. With no rule of law, everything is on the table. Warlords still exist in many parts of the world today

	▲	dlcarrier 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Modern warlords have large quantities of subjects from generations and generations of consolidation, which itself is a variation of joining instead of looting. Gaining subjects is extremely risky, when you don't already have an army. Really, modern first-world countries are just the descendants of warlordships that ran out of kingdoms to consolidate with and instead switched to taxation, either relinquishing enough power to their citizens to maintain a stable but effectively symbolic monarchy or overtaxing then losing to a rebellion.

▲

mrexroad 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those folks tend to have a confounding number of firearms, rather than just one. Not that it necessarily shifts the eventual outcome to your scenario.

▲

koonsolo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Survival is all about being prepared for all kinds of scenarios, adapting to the situation, and a ton of luck.

I rather have a few weapons, than no weapons at all.

▲

throwawayq3423 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.

Source?

	▲	RRWagner 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Every Roman fortification, medieval city & castle? Clarifying, compared to a single villager with a sword or even two.