Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists

[Tim May]

My point was that a gun is an item for an emergency, not that everyone who does not now have one should buy one. Nor was my point addressing the issue of "what would happen if everyone tried to buy one suddenly!?"


On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 12:43 PM, Trei, Peter wrote:

Three points:

1. About half of US households have guns already. It's safe to
assume that they will defend themselves if TSHTF.

And my point is that mention of a gun in a set of emergency supplies is expected, except where the press is gun-phobic.

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.

This overstates the dangers and care required for a gun by a wide margin. Guns are very simple, require almost no maintenance (I know friends/family who have never cleaned or oiled their guns, and yet they work fine when the trigger is pulled).

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.

Beware the "but what if _everyone_ thought that way?" logical fallacy.

And apply your reasoning to some of those other emergency kit items being recommended, e.g., a spare pair of glasses: "But if everybody tried to get eyeglass prescriptions filled, think of the chaos at Lenscrafters and Pearlevision? It would be diastrous. Just the traffic jams alone would cripple the economy."

By the way, having looked at the inventory of several of the local gun shops, each has several hundred guns on display. More are in warehouses. A surge in gun buying, should it happen, would likely result in millions of handguns and rifles being shipped out of warehouses and depots to gun stores.

Furthermore, many gun owners have dozens of handguns and rifles. (One friend of mine has a dozen handguns and 40 rifles. I myself have...well, a lot.) A modest increase in prices, such as would be expected if the "supply isn't there" market situation were true, would likely result in a lot of people deciding they'd be happy to sell that old .38 Special they've moved beyond for a modest $300. Or that old .30-30 lever action for $250. A hundred million handguns and rifles could come out of closets--without depleting the owners of more serious and modern firepower--in weeks.

Not that this will happen. Most people won't get the first aid kit or water purification systems the emergency kit reports are recommended, so they wouldn't get a gun either.

My point was that not mentioning guns is "the dog that didn't bark." Advising on emergency kits to deal with disruptions of food, water, and power but mentioning _nothing_ about defense, is telling.

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.

Doubtful, but I dealt with these issues above.

--Tim May
"That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau