[panglott]

The problem with this article's defense of firearms for disaster preparedness is that firearms are among the least urgent disaster-preparedness items. If what people were really concerned about was disaster preparedness, the things they would obsess over would be flashlights, water storage and purification, a few weeks of food supplies, backup power sources, medical supplies, portable radios. Some preppers do spend time and energy thinking about this, it's true.

But usually what you typically have is a person who enjoys guns and is trying to think about a situation where it might possibly be useful to own an AR-15. It's a terrible self-defense weapon in an urbanized area (compared to a shotgun or handgun), and they're illegal to hunt with in lots of areas. Owning such a gun requires a major investment of money and time (for practice and training), and encourages this kind of paranoid outlook. So you have interest in guns driving interest in disaster preparedness, rather than interest in disaster preparedness driving interest in guns.

[LyndsySimon]

> But usually what you typically have is a person who enjoys guns and is trying to think about a situation where it might possibly be useful to own an AR-15.

Yeah, usually. An AR would be effective in lots of situations, but it's just a semi-auto rifle at the end of the day. If I had no guns and wanted something for defense, I'd probably get a full-size handgun with decent capacity before a rifle of any kind. Probably a Glock 17 or similar.

After that, a rifle is a great thing to have, and ARs are cheap and accessible.

> It's a terrible self-defense weapon in an urbanized area (compared to a shotgun or handgun), and they're illegal to hunt with in lots of areas.

I disagree here, completely. A shotgun's penetration is more than sufficient to have all of the same problems an AR has in that regard, while having a much lower capacity, rate of fire, and being much more difficult to employ due to its substantial recoil.

See here for some realistic evidence of a shotgun's penetration through walls: https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-14-rifles-shotg...

As for hunting, that's pretty much irrelevant to me as I've not been hunting in over a decade. When I did hunt, I used a 1970s-era Colt SP1 Sporter, a relatively early AR-15. I took several deer with it, and had no issues with suitability for that purpose.

[brandall10]

I got a whiff of this mindset when I found out about peak oil circa 2005 or so.

There were folks who had transitioned off the grid in a sustainable way. The point of these weapons is to protect their families against roving gangs looking to scavenge resources ala Mad Max. A family of four will not be able to fight off dozens with shotguns, even against a large unarmed group they will be quickly overwhelmed after taking out a few - semi-auto weapons though they have a fighting chance.

This is also the primary reason they tend to move far away from cities - it's not that they don't like people or civilization in general (they may or may not), it's just that it thins out the number of people who could reasonably access their homestead.

I feel the vast majority of folks who have these weapons have them because they're 'cool'. But for the hard-core preppers convinced that the world is going to end they're an essential survival tool in a post-apocalyptic future.

[omgbananas]

Roving gangs won't stick to cities, they will branch out and then that family alone on their homestead won't stand a chance. However if they are in a neighborhood and work together with their neighbors, then they have a fighting chance.

[brandall10]

That's near term thinking. Longer term thinking had the # of people who were living sustainably OTG to be a vastly small minority of the populace, hence everyone aside from immediate family members were your enemies.

In regards to population density, the further groups had to travel on limited resources the more dispersed and weaker they would be, and in turn the amount of resources available would be more dispersed relative to lack to nearby neighbors, all of which would be reasonably well protected.

Basically, you want to be relatively well fortified slim-pickings that are hard to reach.

[blacksmith_tb]

That seems unlikely - why try and pillage the relatively sparse countryside when so many more resources are concentrated in the cities? I suppose if we're talking the end of civilization then eventually, sure, but who wants to survive that anyhow?

[justherefortart]

I don't know a single person that doesn't have plenty of food/water stores and power generation among most other necessities for natural disasters.

Having lived in SF myself, I had all these things. In the event of a 7+ earthquake I was prepared to ride it out in my apartment if possible or escape to various points across the peninsula.

My wife and I made it a fun hiking game. We'd walk various routes and plan for the OH SHIT earthquake. I sure as hell had my handgun available too in case of an apartment break in or if something big enough hit where we had to flee on foot. The most irritating part was 10 round magazines to be legal in CA. Having 9mm was pointless so I bought a .45 to complement it.

My wife enjoys when we go shooting and we frequently review situations. In the end, it might be for nothing, but I'd rather be half ass prepared than praying for help from someone else.

[slowhand09]

"The problem with this article's defense of firearms for disaster preparedness is that firearms are among the least urgent disaster-preparedness items." Interesting that you assume to know whats best for others, and assume they aren't doing these things as well. It would be different if the post were about "prepping" primarily, buts its about firearms ownership as a hedge against being victimized.

[madengr]

No, handguns suck for self defense. That's why the carbine was invented. Though a handgun you can conceal, so it's handy.

[sullenpaladin]

Originally, the carbine was invented for cavalry use, since a shorter stock is easier to handle on horseback.

[LyndsySimon]

I suspect the GP was referring to the transition from handguns to PDWs ("Personal Defense Weapons") in the military. This happened around 1940; the US Army began issuing the M1 Carbine to tank and vehicle crews, as it was much more effective than a .45 ACP handgun while being shorter, lighter, and easier to move around enclosed spaces than an M1 Garand (the issued rifle at that time).

The M1 Carbine and similar weapons basically evolved into submachineguns - first the M3 "Grease Gun", then the M4 Carbine once the transition from battle rifles to assault rifles happened for front-line infantry.