[ared38]

> Acknowledging that they aren't currently equipped to adequately cover this in depth is insulting?

Except he doesn't acknowledge ignorance, he plows ahead and puts the entire continent in the same category as Syria and Afganistan. Less than 2% of Africans live in the countries he does deign to mention.

> You also seem to be ignoring the premise that being armed is a key part of these plans.

Good luck singlehandedly fighting off the Venezuelan/Russian/Union/rebel army when they come to appropriate your assets. There's a reason insurgents use hit-and-run tactics, they'd be slaughtered in a pitched battle.

[wcarron]

I don't think you're discussing the same threat model as the author. You're talking about fighting an army. He's talking about other dangerous, non-military people (e.g. Another gang of survivors, who happen to have guns while you just have food)

To be fair, military presence is certainly a problematic situation, but it seems more likely you'd encounter other, uh, less-than-savory people out there in an apocalyptic scenario, who are more likely to be dangerous to you than military personnel.

[slowhand09]

I think he lumped African countries for convenience. I have a friend living in Kampala for 30 yrs. He takes his family to stay on a boat in Lake Victoria for a month during any major election period. Or leaves the country. The authors Syria observation is a perfect example. The major points are simple. The benefits of firearm ownership among those who consider themselves able to defend their family/property for a short time outweighs any negatives they are likely to experience.