[AndyFrank]

Remoteness doesn't offer any guarantee.
Besides, not everyone has the luxury of being able to uproot and move - especially on the basis of what could happen.

If society collapses (SHTF of the worse kind) - people will want to leave and go to places where they'd never trekked before.
They could end up in your backyard, no matter how remote you are.

I lived almost as remote as him and will go back home in war. He seems like smacking people in the face with a fish going "Why you keep hitting yourself? Why you keep hitting yourself?" for fun. Never anything real or useful on how to actually do it.

Over a decade we spent 140k on acres and well and power box and phone line and having at least one of us there all the time so the hill "joggers" couldn't steal it or grow.

If somebody just has that?.....we can rescue them to a cabin with a dog yard, camp store and highly capable forest ranger(s) with md for a year. With food, medicines and comforts - how many can just do that?

Most of the ones that can spend that money, end up losing most of the value power re-making all the mistakes people do and go back to the city disillusioned. Between the realtor and the hillbillies, we saw over 30 families come and go, just on our mountain top over the years. Like it was a trap to fleece em of what they did have and send em packing.

So its not easy and the way we did it, they don't have time for. We were at it when 911 happened. They could? With "money and wisdom" but not either alone.

*I like guns because I'm meaner than john wesley hardin and looking forward to the azzholes that try me after the shtf. I don't need guns? I can use theirs.

 

[Kauboy]

Read what you posted. "MANY" maybe thousands of "Civilized Societies" have been TOTALLY 100% destroyed. They are gone, only the recorded history of their existence exists.

I know what I posted.
Yet here we are. I didn't confine the scenario to one localized area. I referred to life in general. Humans still exist. There's no such life-ending scenario in our history, let alone one for which "moving far enough away" would have changed anything.
Also, your statement of a localized civilization being 100% destroyed would include everyone, even those who thought they'd planned to survive.
Most of the civilizations you're alluding to were not even "destroyed". A marked few were truly wiped out from a local environmental disaster or disease. The rest were torn into pieces by war, lost their primary source of income and dispersed, or just joined with surrounding civilizations and abandoned their original home.
There is no record of a disaster befalling the human population as a whole that didn't eventually see a return to normalcy and the continuation of human existence.

Now, if your plan is simply to be self-sustaining, living out in the wilderness until you die out in the wilderness... more power to you.
Most wouldn't call that living, and it certainly won't net you any long term benefits other than proclaiming "I won" to a dead world.
If that's your plan, good luck with it.

For the rest of us, we strive for bridging the gap between the fall and the rise. That could be months, it could be decades. That's what we plan for, because one thing's for sure with humans, it will never be permanent.

 

[Sourdough]

Now, if your plan is simply to be self-sustaining, living out in the wilderness until you die out in the wilderness... more power to you.
Most wouldn't call that living, and it certainly won't net you any long term benefits other than proclaiming "I won" to a dead world.
If that's your plan, good luck with it.

One thing I find interesting is how many thinks living in the wilderness SUPER-SUPER-SUPER "SUCKS". Strange they can't comprehend all the people who "CHOOSE" to live remote because they feel it is a higher quality way to spend one's life on earth.

A person can live very-very rural or remote, have the skills, tools, "experience" to live self-sustaining, and yet choose to utilize all the same "wonderful" things most on this forum enjoy. Many people live in the wilderness in thirty or seventy-million-dollar homes. Many live on remote farms or ranches.

Anyone notice how many are moving to Montana or Idaho or Colorado or Wyoming...??

 

[Back Pack Hack]

You "Quoted" my post # 52

Please reread post # 52 and point to where anything in that post made the slightest mention of firearms. Just one sentence. My post made zero reference to firearms. It spoke clearly reference the skillset for surviving a different social environment.

I have zero opposition to the ownership of firearms. I strongly feel there are more prudent tools for any transition period. And survival post transition period.

Sigh. Now you're playing the victim, trying to claim post 52 said nothing about firearms.

I guess it's beyond you to figure out the entire thread is about firearms.

 

[Sourdough]

I guess it's beyond you to figure out the entire thread is about firearms.

WRONG.......It is about several points relative to Prepping, including Firearms.
Please mitigate your compulsion to attack me, it upsets the forum moderator.

 

[Kauboy]

One thing I find interesting is how many thinks living in the wilderness SUPER-SUPER-SUPER "SUCKS". Strange they can't comprehend all the people who "CHOOSE" to live remote because they feel it is a higher quality way to spend one's life on earth.

A person can live very-very rural or remote, have the skills, tools, "experience" to live self-sustaining, and yet choose to utilize all the same "wonderful" things most on this forum enjoy. Many people live in the wilderness in thirty or seventy-million-dollar homes. Many live on remote farms or ranches.

Anyone notice how many are moving to Montana or Idaho or Colorado or Wyoming...??

I didn't say it sucks. I said most wouldn't call that living.
You've chosen to separate yourself from your species. Humans are social. We do much better in groups, even if just small ones.
But like I said, if that's your plan, more power to you. Contrary to your position, I'm not here to change your mind on that. I'm here to explain to you that people are different, with different goals and perspectives, and that there is no single solution that fits all scenarios. That's a nicer way of saying "We're not wrong just because you think we are. We're just different."

What I struggle to understand is why you're so persistent to tell others they should strive do the same as you.
I will go ahead and speak for a large group of people and say "No, but thank you." The majority don't want to do that, and we accept the inherent risks involved in staying more closely connected to a society.
That is NOT to say we still can't learn the required skills and acquire the necessary tools and experience needed to survive long term. But we don't share the same desire to disconnect.
If disconnecting only affords a person a few more years of isolated loneliness in a collapsed world, what have they really gained?

 

[OrganikRoots]

People with ZERO social skills are best off living in a freezer state along with their trusty poop bucket.
This way they can feel like they are survivalists.
Comical, but true ...

 

[Kauboy]

People with ZERO social skills are best off living in a freezer state along with their trusty poop bucket.
This way they can feel like they are survivalists.
Comical, but true ...

 

[Sourdough]

I'm here to explain to you that people are different, with different goals and perspectives, and that there is no single solution that fits all scenarios. That's a nicer way of saying "We're not wrong just because you think we are. We're just different."

So lets put that away forever. I 100% agree with your statement.

What I struggle to understand is why you're so persistent to tell others they should strive do the same as you.

That is not my message, nor my goal to communicate that. I believe those in close proximity to large or moderate size groups of people will be at much greater risk. Their quality of life after any size SHTF event would be compounded by substantial amounts of humans.

If disconnecting only affords a person a few more years of isolated loneliness in a collapsed world, what have they really gained?

We, all eleven of us (total population) are not lonely. We live in paradise in an 1886 Gold Mining Town, surrounded by seven million acres of National Forest. Everyone who lives here can financially afford to move. But why would we..?? We live in paradise, with abundant free food and water. in a staggeringly beautiful ten-mile-long valley. We are not lonely. Interesting that people on forum assume that if you don't live with huge amounts of people, you are lonely. The loneliest I have ever been is when around huge amounts of people.

 

[NotTooProudToHide]

I didn't say it sucks. I said most wouldn't call that living.
You've chosen to separate yourself from your species. Humans are social. We do much better in groups, even if just small ones.
But like I said, if that's your plan, more power to you. Contrary to your position, I'm not here to change your mind on that. I'm here to explain to you that people are different, with different goals and perspectives, and that there is no single solution that fits all scenarios. That's a nicer way of saying "We're not wrong just because you think we are. We're just different."

What I struggle to understand is why you're so persistent to tell others they should strive do the same as you.
I will go ahead and speak for a large group of people and say "No, but thank you." The majority don't want to do that, and we accept the inherent risks involved in staying more closely connected to a society.
That is NOT to say we still can't learn the required skills and acquire the necessary tools and experience needed to survive long term. But we don't share the same desire to disconnect.
If disconnecting only affords a person a few more years of isolated loneliness in a collapsed world, what have they really gained?

Agree 100% on your thoughts about socialization. It is engraved into our DNA, as a species we started as hunter/gather family units to clans to villages to kingdoms to nations.

If it all went to crap I will make sure myself and my family are taken care of then friends/neighbors and community. I believe we tend to do better in numbers than we do all alone.

 

[Kauboy]

So lets put that away forever. I 100% agree with your statement.

That is not my message, nor my goal to communicate that. I believe those in close proximity to large or moderate size groups of people will be at much greater risk. Their quality of life after any size SHTF event would be compounded by substantial amounts of humans.

We, all eleven of us (total population) are not lonely. We live in paradise in an 1886 Gold Mining Town, surrounded by seven million acres of National Forest. Everyone who lives here can financially afford to move. But why would we..?? We live in paradise, with abundant free food and water. in a staggeringly beautiful ten-mile-long valley. We are not lonely. Interesting that people on forum assume that if you don't live with huge amounts of people, you are lonely. The loneliest I have ever been is when around huge amounts of people.

Then allow me to apologize and reassess your position.
You've presented yourself as quite the lone wolf, and implied that the rest of us aren't as capable as you are.
But if you're in a community, then you're indeed just on the upper end of the spectrum I mentioned earlier. You have people to rely on, and help, when needed.

There are many on this board who would absolutely love to get away from the urban or suburban life, and get some land. There are a LOT here who've already achieved this.
But those still struggling to make that a potential reality must face the reality they're stuck in.

To tie this thread back to your original point, you righty point out that anyone surrounded by lots of people when a SHTF event pops off are in for a worse time. But that's likely the exact reason many get involved in firearms. They are the equalizer in a world of "unequals". One man with a rifle can protect his family from an entire mob. That's saying something.
While it might be the long term goal of everyone here to find their own spot of land to buffer themselves from the crowd, that's a big ask.
Until that time, the firearm is the threat mitigator.

Now, if I ever see someone on here say they spent the equivalent of a land down payment on a gun, then I'll be sounding just like Ol' Sourdough in my reply.

 

[charito]

There is a clear distinction between fantasize and having lived it for decades. In one it is a wet dream, in the other it is decades of experience.

Of course, there's a difference.
I'm talking of those who fantacize.

 

[charito]

If the "GOAL" is survival. There are many tools and skills. For urban dwellers and semi-urban dwellers one or two firearms may be prudent. You're not going to survive even two fire fights uninjured. The goal is survival, real world survival. Many things will enhance the probability of survival more than firearms.

Why should they limit themselves?

If they can afford to buy a whole arsenal - I don't see anything wrong with that? They should!
You don't know how those can come in handy!
Who's to say how many firearms urban dwellers should have? Especially so with urban dwellers! You don't know!
Firearms will surely come in handy when someone's trying to break down your door - not only to get what you have - but also to cook you!

I can already think of one or two scenarios why it's good to have as many firepower you can get.

I think you're making such a big deal about firearms.
If it's not so important to you - well, that's you. Spend your money on what you want instead.
But, I don't think you've got any authority to lecture how many one should have.

There are no rules as to how much protective gears one should have.

 

[charito]

I have zero opposition to the ownership of firearms. I strongly feel there are more prudent tools for any transition period. And survival post transition period.

Why is this an issue of...................................either this or that?
You can have both!

 

[Annie]

Why are preppers so obsessed with firearms? Easy. Squirrels.

 

[Sourdough]

I think you're making such a big deal about firearms.
If it's not so important to you - well, that's you. Spend your money on what you want instead.
But, I don't think you've got any authority to lecture how many one should have.

I live with monsters; those monsters go rogue several times a month. I never leave my cabin without monster control tools, like my .475 LINEBAUGH. I have terminated a disgusting number of monsters, including some who were breaking into my dwelling.

I build custom .458 Winchester Magnum rifles for other professional hunters. I write articles about firearms for publications.

I have "ZERO" authority to tell anyone on this forum how many firearms they should own for protection of their loved ones or their property. "ZERO".

When the SHTF in UKRAINE last spring, TENS of MILLIONS of Ukrainians hauled ass out of the country (think bugged'out). This is my point about obsession with firearms. People on forums have been taught that in a SHTF environment, grab you guns and fight to the death. They will be lucky to survive one "Firefight" unscratched. By firefight number two or three they will be mortally wounded or instantly dead. Have firearms, but don't obsess about firearms relative to other priorities.

 

[charito]

I live with monsters; those monsters go rogue several times a month. I never leave my cabin without monster control tools, like my .475 LINEBAUGH. I have terminated a disgusting number of monsters, including some who were breaking into my dwelling.

I build custom .458 Winchester Magnum rifles for other professional hunters. I write articles about firearms for publications.

I have "ZERO" authority to tell anyone on this forum how many firearms they should own for protection of their loved ones or their property. "ZERO".

When the SHTF in UKRAINE last spring, TENS of MILLIONS of Ukrainians hauled ass out of the country (think bugged'out). This is my point about obsession with firearms. People on forums have been taught that in a SHTF environment, grab you guns and fight to the death. They will be lucky to survive one "Firefight" unscratched. By firefight number two or three they will be mortally wounded or instantly dead. Have firearms, but don't obsess about firearms relative to other priorities.

Define "obsess."
What would - in your eyes - make it an obsession?

 

[Sourdough]

Define "obsess."
What would - in your eyes - make it an obsession?

Fair question. Obsessing about firearms substantially more than other "Prepping" goals.
I say preppers obsess about firearms, because it is exciting and stimulating to them. Firearms are "CHEAP" and extremely low labor, relative to other prepping priorities. Preppers are LAZY and CHEAP.

Those who reside in or near large populations will quickly discover the relative uselessness of firearms. That is not to say there is not a place in prepping for firearms.

Most preppers are in prepping for the entertainment. And 99.99 percent of what they know they learned on the internet, with near "ZERO" firsthand practicing to refine their skills. What do preppers talk about..?? Virtually zero of discussions involve any manual labor or training. Infact if you mention "TRAINING" to a prepper, they auto default to thinking "FIREARMS TRAINING". I started my prepping training in 1952, that training was different then current prepping theory.

EVERYONE gets to and is fully entitled to prepare anyway they choose. Remember all of the militaries around the world have many levels of training.

Most preppers have firearms and "SOME" food; however, few have five or seven years of food. And rare is the prepper with many sources of pure/fresh water when the spickets stop working. I would prefer many sources of water to many choices of firearms. Have as many sources of pure/fresh water as firearms. Notice no one obsesses about water, or a bullet resistant dwelling, or a safe location.

If or when TSHTF most will find themselves prioritizing the need for water over the need for their firearms.

 

[Buckman]

Why are preppers so obsessed with firearms? Easy. Squirrels.

And repelling the unprepared coming with machetes to get your stuff.
Also to protect your nuts …..to feed the squirrels of course.

 

[IAfaug]

hi all new poster hear have lurked for awhile, post a lot in hunting forum, read this post and really got me thinking on a couple things
Sourdough you started this post and quoted
[QUOTE="Sourdough,
I have zero opposition to the ownership of firearms. I strongly feel there are more prudent tools for any transition period. And survival post transition period.
[/QUOTE]
I also believe you said something to the effect that you should relocate to a remote location where there aren’t many people , i am going to give two opinions on this. First on your way to a remote location, you could run into various groups of hungry people in a larger force than you who more than likely will take your supplies if your undefended and possibly rape and murder any one or all oF you, it’s society of the strongest and fittest. My second opinion not knowimg a lot about your background but most remote places in the USA have dangerous/deadly wildlife, alligators in the south poisonous snakes in a lot of the southern states cougars lions wolves and bears. How would you defend yourself in a bear or cougar attack? With a stick? I know the caveman and Indians didnt have guns but , we have those tools today so why not have one or more in your toolbox?
My other thought you try to say a pepper is this and a survivlist is this,,, im call my self ,,,preper to survive. Whether it a local incident or worldwide im on my way to prepping to Survive. Just my newbie two cents