One important thing that everyone seems to be missing is a firearm. What good is prepping if all of your goods can easily be seized? This is in addition to a firearm's utility as a hunting instrument, which could prove useful if your supplies began to dwindle. Regardless, owning a firearm is prudent whether or not your prepping efforts come to fruition.
This is terrible advice. I grew up with guns on the wall. My dad grew up on a farm, spent 26.5 years in the military, was awarded a purple heart. I grew up with gun culture and eating food dad killed himself.
If you are not actually going to become a hunter and seriously learn to shoot and become part of gun culture, don't go buy a gun "in case you need it, some day." That's utter insanity. It will just result in you helping to arm other people (that you don't want to arm, that will not be your protectors) and upping the stakes in the process.
I was a fine shot in my youth. I would be perfectly comfortable being around guns for the right reason, under the right circumstances. This is not it.
Instead of preparing yourself for some Mad Max bullshit scenario where you imagine you will play hero, having never done it before in your life, just work on continuing to improve supply chain, emergency response and so forth -- in other words, keep building a more reliable and more civilized civilization. That is your best bet right there.
If you actually are a part of gun culture and know what the fuck you are doing, I am not talking about you. So don't give me shit for telling ninnies to not do this.
> Instead of preparing yourself for some Mad Max bullshit scenario where you imagine you will play hero, having never done it before in your life, just work on continuing to improve supply chain, emergency response and so forth -- in other words, keep building a more reliable and more civilized civilization. That is your best bet right there.
I agree with this in part. Firearms proficiency is a skill that you need to acquire and maintain if you want to be able to use a gun to defend yourself and your family without accidentally shooting them. This is a skill you can acquire with classes, but merely having the pistol/shotgun won't make you safer automatically.
This is absolutely hilarious. If you're not a professional hunter don't buy a gun, but instead fix the wrongs of society.
Well, I hope the person who follows your advice doesn't have an emergency situation in the next, oh, thousand years, because our current trajectory to a Star Trek utopia is lagging.
Well said. Owning a firearm is a serious commitment and responsibility. You describe well the dedication it takes for a gun to be a useful tool and not just a hazard in the home.
Choosing the right weapon for your needs is not just a trip to Cabela's and I'll take the shiny one. I like what you say about supply chain. Even if as a novice you manage to kill an animal for food, do you have any idea how to process it for safe consumption. There are less resource and skill intensive ways of hunting (trapping, snaring) that can be successful. When someone says, "should I buy this gun?", it's a bit like when someone says, "should I buy this computer?" Well, it all depends what you're trying to do.
A cousin won a live turkey one thanksgiving. Dad killed it. Mom prepped it for freezing. Most Americans would not have known how at that time and these days many people no longer really cook. They microwave everything.
Can you clarify as to why owning a gun, as both a casual hobby and means of defense for unlikely scenarios, is "utter insanity"? And why do you believe gun owners view themselves as "prepping [...] for some Mad Max bullshit scenario"? Otherwise, using such language strongly discredits your already weak argument.
> Can you clarify as to why owning a gun, as both a casual hobby and means of defense for unlikely scenarios, is "utter insanity"?
not the op, but the way I read it is that unless you are heavily invested in gun culture, meaning that you have appropriate training and you shoot regularly to maintain skill, then owning a gun makes you and your loved ones less safe.
My understanding is that research shows that gun owners and their families are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by said firearm (accidentally, or intentionally) than they are to ever actually have the opportunity to use the gun for defence.
In that context the original statement makes sense.
unless you are heavily invested in gun culture, meaning that you have appropriate training and you shoot regularly to maintain skill
I wouldn't call that being "heavily invested" in a "culture." That skill level is better categorized as a basic competency in a specialized domain and we do a disservice to act like there is some HUGE hurdle to being a responsible gun owner. It's actually a pretty LOW bar for all but the disinterested passerby.
Why does everything have to be so damn siloed? I don't belong to a "boating culture" for learning how to operate a boat and owning a jetski. There's no "woodworking culture" that I belong to just because I can show up in a shop and start ripping boards. Both of those require serious safety training too. But they're not my primary hobbies, or something I choose to socialize around.
I'm neither for nor against gun ownership, but I am against blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The facts are:
- 1 : home invasion is incredibly rare
- 2 : injury and death by firearm, intentional or otherwise is incredibly high in the USA.
Professor Harold Pollack, who (among other things) co-directs the University of Chicago's Crime Lab: [1]
"...the everyday risks of injury, accident, domestic altercations, and suicide. The relative risks matter. And the fact is: lethal home invasions and burglaries are incredibly rare. You might not think so, since dramatic cases stick in your mind and tend to receive disproportionate press coverage. These cases are rare nonetheless."
"I had the Chicago police run the number on homicides. In 2011, precisely one homicide listed "burglary" as the motive. Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year. When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious."
Enjoy your guns all you like, but be honest, they are a dangerous hobby and the statistical likelihood of you or a family member being harmed or killed by a gun the family owns is far higher than the chance that
- you will ever be the victim of a home invasion
- you will get the chance for a high noon shoot out with a "bad guy"
You made a very specific claim ("research shows that gun owners and their families are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by said firearm"), then when called on it, you threw out a number of quotes (from specifically anti-RKBA sources) unrelated to your claim.
That false claim is often quoted from the Kellerman study, but an examination of his data (it took years for him to release it) revealed that in almost all such homicides, it was a gun that the intruder brought with him (predominantly male) and not one the victim owned. (Kates, 2001) The residents' gun could have been locked up in the basement, and Kellerman counted it anyway.
Or, do you have different research in mind that supports that claim?
"gun owners and their families are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by said firearm (accidentally, or intentionally) than they are to ever actually have the opportunity to use the gun for defence"
There's really no need to muddy the waters with politics. The raw data speaks for itself :
- violent home invasions leading to murder are exceedingly rare
- accidental gun injury or death is sadly commonplace
I've already supplied many sources, so i won't repeat the stats that plainly lay out this reality
This discussion has veered away from the thread topic, but, regardless, thank you for presenting data. My major reservation here is that it seems a bit disingenuous to highlight suicide, while at the same time not including injury, rape, or loss of property that result from home invasions.
> seems a bit disingenuous to highlight suicide, while at the same time not including injury, rape, or loss of property that result from home invasions.
Nothing disingenuous about it.
In fact, statistically speaking, the situation is even worse. Introducing a gun into an already violent encounter significantly increases the risk of injury and death.
There is tonnes of evidence to support this. Here is one, very specific study that indirectly confirms exactly this.
It's a long read, but well worth it if you are really interested in what the literature has to say about the often surprising ways in which guns affect the outcomes of violent crime.
Here is one, very specific study that indirectly confirms exactly this.
Interviews of 100 incarcerated felons (with a specific incentive to discourage gun ownership), without any actual data (even anecdotal), confirms nothing. Did you bother to read any of your quoted research before cutting-and-pasting?
so you didn't like that source, did you bother to read any of the other many sources I supplied? Guess not since they don't support your world view.
Like i said I'm not anti gun. But saying I own a gun for protection is kind of like saying "I BASE jump to stay fit". No you don't. You do it because it's dangerous and fun. Guns are the same.
I wish more gun owners were intellectually honest and just admitted that they like their dangerous hobby in spite of the fact that
- Their chance of being a victim of violent crime such as home invasion or car jacking is unbelievably tiny
- The chance that they or a family member will be killed or injured by a family owned gun utterly dwarfs the chance that said gun will actually prevent violent crime
These are facts borne out 100% by data.
from [1], which gets most of it's data from government collected statistics. These are stats just for accidental injury!:
- "In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18"
- "From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19"
- "Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20"
- "People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21"
- "A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22"
Again, from [2], "Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year.". 100 homicides for the ENTIRE USA related to burglary!! And i'd speculate that a significant number of these deaths were due to victims escalating the situation by drawing a gun!
That means you are 6 times as likely to accidentally kill yourself than be the victim of a murder during a burglary.
Yet again, you dodge the question, and yet again, you refer to media articles that quote no actual data.
I read each of the "studies" you refer to in the years they were released, and many, many more. I've been studying criminology for 23 years.
Repeating the "I'm not anti-gun" mantra whilst referring only to anti-RKBA sources (and misquoting those) reinforces intellectual dishonesty.
And as for "Their chance of being a victim of violent crime such as home invasion or car jacking is unbelievably tiny", you really haven't examined the data. There are dozens of carjackings and home invasions (aka "hot burglary" - entering when residents are present) each month in the Bay Area alone. If you rely only on media reports, they are typically reported only as "burglaries".
What is actually "unbelievably tiny" is one's odds of being killed by an "assault weapon", yet phony claims to the contrary drive the media narrative. Drownings excluding those in swimming pools exceed homicide by "assault weapon" in the U.S.
> There are dozens of carjackings and home invasions (aka "hot burglary" - entering when residents are present) each month in the Bay Area alone
and how many of those result in murder? Or do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok? If this is the case then we have no common ground.
My position is that being scared and losing your TV isn't grounds for ending a burglar's life.
do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok?
When an armed party has broken into a home, knowing residents are present, only a fool would assume that only personal property is at risk. There's a fundamental difference in home invasion from, say, breaking into an unoccupied vehicle.
> only a fool would assume that only personal property is at risk
this is a classic example of emotion clouding better judgement. A more rational approach would be to look at the data:
- In 2010, there were an estimated 2,159,878 burglaries [1]
- In 2013 there were 94 murders associated with burglary
This is a 0.00435% chance that you will be killed in the course of a burglary. I'm sure this number will go down dramatically as long as you don't grab a gun ;)
Given such an interpretation, I find it is more sensible to label such a person "misinformed", not suffering from "utter insanity". The latter phrase immediately shuts down, at least for me, any productive discourse.
You aren't looking for productive discourse. You are promoting a very dangerous idea and pulling a single phrase completely out of context as a cheap excuse to be dismissive.
I also used to pay accident claims. I have paid claims for dumbasses whose lack of gun safety practices maimed a child for life. I also denied one where his carelessness was so beyond the pale it was not covered.
I don't feel any need to "respect" your supposed right to promote this terrible idea.
If you want to prepare to be Mad Max, take up archery. A bow requires real skill. You won't be empowering some random jackass to kill you with your own weapon.
Ok, but if you don't have training don't buy a gun. Home intruders have used blackouts as a cover and police services are often stretched. Still, owning a firearm does require some practice and training.
If you are going to buy one, then get either a shotgun or something with a lot of support[1]. Then you need to practice and understand the safety built into the gun and how to secure the weapon in your home.
1) this is why the AR-15 is so popular. a normal person can add accessories.
It shouldn't stop you, but having a gun you don't know how to shoot is pretty useless. Its not like basic training takes very long[1]. The local gun range generally has a pretty quick training program in place.
The other big thing is that allows you to select a gun that will be easy to fire for you. Buying a gun that is a pain to fire will mean little practice and problems.
1) much shorter than most learning to drive programs
Well yeah, but it would be helpful to get the training and work with someone to find which gun to buy. Getting training lets you fire a variety under supervision which will improve your chances of liking what you buy.
A scenario where prepping efforts come to fruition is far from "usual"; one's preconceptions about how others act should be reevaluated in the face of it. Again, this comes down to what you are prepping for.
I know people who were isolated by a large ice storm for several days. They took in neighbours who didn't have heat.
I can't speak for others, but I'm prepping for a 10-15 day breakdown of the system.
As a pragmatic matter, if society is in a situation where somebody is willing to die to get a hold of my month's supply of baked beans then I'll probably be willing to kill them. As a general principle, I donate my still long from expired canned food every year when I replace it fresh.
Seriously? I would use barricades, tazers, pepper spray, traps, smoke, fire, light, sound, and other means to dissuade the thief. Someone with their ears pounding from 125dB alarms, lungs choked with smoke, eyes streaked with pepper spray, skin on fire and body pulsing with 40,000 volts probably is not too concerned with my beans - if they could get past the steel-reinforced door.
People with guns don't seem to consider any other factor, besides that if the opponent has a gun, or can get yours away, you're not in a good defense position anyway. Guns are mainly useful for offense. Maybe that's why some preppers want them.
> I would use barricades, tazers, pepper spray, traps, smoke, fire, light, sound, and other means to dissuade the thief
You have time for all that? Using a tazer or peper spray means your basically in well within pistol range and very close to hand-to-hand range. How exactly are you going to deploy your sound or smoke weapon?
> Guns are mainly useful for offense. Maybe that's why some preppers want them.
Guns are plenty useful for defense. Have you ever received any gun training?
Seriously? You've just changed the scenario completely.
If the person trying to steal my beans will go away if I say "stop I have a gun" or simply barricade my door then I'm sure as hell not shooting them. It's a last resort.
I am hoping to never need to use my emergency kit again.
Also, you should talk to cops about pepper spray, tasers, etc. and how often they fail.
And you should talk to cops about the effectiveness of attackers with blades against a trained officer with a holstered weapon closer than 21 feet. But both those and the pepper spray/taser fails are outliers, they are not the norm.
In a last resort, I don't want my attacker using my weapon against me, and if they can, I don't want it to be fatal. Which is why I don't carry knives for self defense, even though i'm trained in eskrima.
The care and use of a gun (especially in combat, in close quarters and urban environments) adds multiple layers of complexity.
I would rely on multiple layers of complexity for defense, since that's how modern security design works. A gun is a single point of failure. A shelter or person full of extremely undesirable defenses is more reliable, less dangerous, and probably much easier to stock.
I agree that it is wise to avoid a single point of failure, and that multiple layers of security could prove quite useful. All that I am advocating is that a gun is just another viable layer of security.
New question: is the reason one might want to have a gun in an emergency simply to be able to injure, maim or kill someone regardless of a specific reason?
If you say it's "for defense", remember that the concept is subjective; a robber being beaten for stealing may fear for their life and "defend" themselves. Specific reasons are less controversial and more practical.
