> Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
> That Item Whose Name May Not Be Spoken on Television: a gun.
>
> If there's disruption, looting, a breakdown in what now passes for
> civil order, a gun is just about the most important thing to have.
> Probably not necessary to use it, for 99.5% of everyone, but then most
> of the emergency things like plastic sheets and medical supplies
> probably won't be needed, either.
[...]
Your point is well taken, but:
Three points:
1. About half of US households have guns already. It's safe to
assume that they will defend themselves if TSHTF.
2. For the half which don't, a very large number of them consist of
people with no firearms experience (especially since the draft
ended 30 years ago), no knowledge of gun maintenance and
safety, or training in how, when, and when not to use them.
3. The supply isn't there. Guns last a very long time, and
rarely need to be replaced. As a result, the stockpile
of available unsold guns is much smaller than the
size of the unarmed populace.
Even if they live in a state where it's legal to do so without getting
a license from the state first, telling the sheeple to rush out and
buy shotguns would probably lose more lives to accidents than it
would save, if Walmart etal didn't run out of stock first.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have the freedom to do so - far
from it. But I don't think it's practical advice.
Peter Trei
