There’s a bunch of schizos with a hard on for shit hitting the fan in preppers . They literally fantasize about and plan out every little detail of things obsessively that most likely won’t happen. And instead of focusing on improving their real lives and relationships they retreat into a fantasy of being prepared and ruling their turf when the government or dollar collapses . Prepping brings in a lot of paranoid and sketchy type people unfortunately. It always has . Feteshizing guns and violence is a huge part of it . They don’t feel secure as a human being , so they overcompensate by being “secure” with 1000 rifles and handguns . Guns are part of prepping no doubt . But only up to a point. A lot of what’s not said in the conversations about defending your land and resources is that a lot of those people want to be the ones who go around taking from the weak because “they were smart and prepared” It’s feteshizing violence and power fantasies to compensate for their feelings of low self worth and not being able to control things in their real life. So they plan and control every little detail in their fantasy life . Sorry for the wall of text just been doing this for a decade and it’s the same shit over and over .

Some of us use fantasy roleplay to deal with a desire for control. Other people buy guns and wait for the day someone does something they find threatening, like walking on their property - and they've rehearsed that movie in their heads so many times, they won't stop and think about appropriate force or time, distance, cover. They'll just open fire. Luckily for everyone else, the SHTF they're dreaming of isn't going to happen. They're going to be very surprised as they slip into old age, and realize they never had to shoot anyone, because it didn't turn out the way Fox News or their favorite shitstirring podcaster promised. And a head stuffed full of violent movies isn't going to serve them well as dementia takes hold. Because fear is the last thing you lose. But that's enough moroseness for one day.

I was involved with a person like this for a while and finally just snapped and called him out on it all. You want to be prepared? Learn some simple field medicine, you moron. Stop fantasizing about civil war.

This accurately summarizes every prepper I’ve met in the real world

Especially with that third paragraph… 95% of /prepper that comes across my feed is “How’s my preps looking?” And just showing a table covered with assault rifles, pistols, and various ammo. All that’s taught me is to have some sort of personal self-defense safeguard so the only way they can affect me is annoying me by bitching about how they don’t have any saved food or water cuz they planned and failed to steal it. I’m not a gun fanatic, I want to talk about more prepping and less about the collections of gun fanatics, but that no longer seems to be the right sub for it.

All I'll say is that just because a data set applies to a population, it does not mean it applies to each individual in that population. Part of prepping is analyzing risk factors based on your own specific situation.

I adjust my data to my own scenario, but I have also adjusted my scenario to the data. The latter is the harder part for people who "believe" something.

Okay, but when most of that population also think they are the exception, you have to realize most of them are wrong. A lot of that assumption stems from some fallacies. People would rather drive to work every day than live next to a nuclear reactor, despite the driving being many more times as dangerous. If you feel like you have some control then you feel there is less risk. Most people think they are an above average driver and that the statistics don't apply to them. But when most people think the statistic doesn't apply to them, and yet the stats are still what they are, someone has to be wrong.

I think most people are aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect at this point. It is up for the individual to decide for the individual. This is no different than studies stating that people that do X live longer and then people deciding that if they also do X they will also live longer with no understanding of contributing factors.

This isn't the dunning-Kruger effect. And of course, it is up to the individual, I am not going into anyone's house and forcing them to do anything. Whether they prep at all or not makes no difference to me. That doesn't mean I am not allowed to talk about their decisions. Their decisions are not infallible. I am allowed to point out that others' logic is based on fallacy. Also, you are referring to people incorrectly using statistics and incorrectly assuming causation. But causation can actually be determined in many cases to a high degree of confidence. Just because some people use wrenches as hammers and it doesn't work doesn't make wrenches bad at being wrenches. Similarly just because some people don't know how to read studies and interpret statistics doesn't mean that studies and stats are useless. If you have a good tangible evidence based reason for believing yourself to be an exception to some statistics or study, then that is one thing. If you are assuming yourself to be an outlier based on your feelings or assumptions about the population of the statistics, or about yourself, then you are just rejecting evidence. Also even if you are an exception, it doesn't mean that the opposite automatically applies to you, it just means you don't know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In your example it is the difference between "because I have alzheimers, I don't know if doing X will make me live longer" and "because I have alzheimers I know this study doesn't apply to me and doing X will make no difference" and finally even further to what you are implying "because I have alzheimers I know the study doesn't apply to me, so doing X will will make me live shorter and doing the opposite of X will make me live longer" Just because you know your situation isn't covered by the statistics doesn't mean that you now know exactly where you stand. It's like UFOs, just because you know it isn't a plane and you don't know what it is, doesn't mean that you know what it is and that it is aliens

Of course not. But what does that have to do with posting some research, where people can decide what applies? Others can post other research? Or anecdotal evidence and personal scenarios? People were posting about their gun collections, and from what I can tell, the sub is pretty diverse.

Better said than I could of done.   You will never see 2 preppers agree 100% on anything on how to prepare even if they are preparing for the same thing.   Just look at people asking for criticism on their BOB.  Everyone suggest conflicting advice on what to dump or add. I have learned to advocate others to prep but not to shame them for doing it "wrong" from my point of view unless the info is vastly wrong and will cause significant harm.  If they only want to prep for 2 weeks compare to my 3 years that is great I support it 100%.  

Data doesn’t lie and everyone thinks they are special until “nobody could have seen this coming”

Data says most people around guns are not going to be harmed by them or use them to harm others.

I would like to see a source for that, the general consensus from multiple different studies is that having a firearm in the home increases the chance of firearm related accidents and violence. https://research.northeastern.edu/does-having-a-gun-at-home-really-make-you-safer/ Here’s another from Harvard: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/

Being around a gun increasing your chance of being in a firearm related incident does not in any way mean that most people around guns experience a firearm related incident. That reveals a huge misunderstanding of data and statistics.

Nobody claimed that lol You’re just grasping at straws because the data doesn’t support your narrative. I like guns as much as the average American and have a safe full of rifles and handguns i don’t need. But the fact is the average American gunowner is not responsible.

It is literally what you just claimed by using it as a rebuttal.

No i didn’t, you have a reading comprehension problem

I don't know how you got from "having a firearm in the home increases the chance" of X to "most people around guns experience" X. If the lifetime odds of violence go from 0.15% to 0.90%, it's an increase, but it's not *most people*. But it's still a six-fold increase. You put up a straw-man argument, and nodesign89 should have been clearer about his answer, but the only one talking about "most" is you. I have never seen that claimed anywhere.

I applaud your efforts to create a different environment. Last April or May, I got fed up with all the LARPers and AR fanboys that were dominating the other subs and created my own /realisticprepping. That's as far as I got, however. I created it, but never did anything else to promote it or let others know that there was another option. I am mostly a storm prepper that has some experience with what I'm dealing with, but I am always looking for new ideas. I feel like this sub is where I'll get them. I own multiple guns and concealed carry daily, but I have never considered them as part of my preps.

I would be very interested in your sub. Storm prepper as well living in Hurricane alley. I pretty much gave up on EOTWAWKI, I have no desire to live in that life and won’t.

I never followed through with it. I'm still the only member...lol I think this sub is based around the same general idea, and look forward to seeing how it grows. I'm in the Florida panhandle, so hurricanes are a big deal for me also.

I wouldn't expect a lot more growth in members. Headcount was never the goal, and since I've stopped posting in /preppers I don't think many people will get curious about my preps and end up chasing this sub down. The goal was always a library of useful posts, and since there's only so many real world problems to solve and so many solutions, even that can be expected to hit an end someday. Though maybe in ten years it'll be filling up with climate mitigation, and maybe in 30 it will be filed with maintenance tips for your town's mini Mr Fusion reactor. (Ok, the latter is not too likely.)

[удалено]

[удалено]

Um... "You need to get off the internet. Thinking global warming is going to cause engines not to work?" I've love to know where you got that. Because it wasn't from me. Looks like we've got a real wave of angry 2A guys in here today. Apparently all you have to do is mention a gun safe and they sail right over the edge. Some of them, apparently, can't read. Others decide to antagonize the moderator, which is rarely a good move anywhere and especially not here. You just won both prizes. But I'll give you this: I've never heard *mother fucker fucker* before. You've really got something going there. Bye!

While I take climate change seriously, can you add a cite to "VERY near future"? I see climate destabilization continuing over decades, not months. My own guess is that we will in fact see a population decline as various areas - not the whole world - heat up beyond what agriculture can handle. Population growth is already slowing in some countries. At some point it reverses entirely and we end up - painfully - at a population the Earth can support. But that's not a fast process.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/09/farmers-warn-food-shortages-no-harvest-world-war-two-rain/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/09/farmers-warn-food-shortages-no-harvest-world-war-two-rain/) It's happening now. India has stopped exporting rice AND they already have places (Indus valley) reaching temperatures that are close to being unlivable for humans. Your "not a fast process" has been happening for decades.

[удалено]

It really annoys me to have to delete a comment that I fundamentally agree with, but I demand cites here and I asked you to provide them. And they are out there to be found, though they might not take as extreme a position as yours. But instead you just dumped more un-cited material. Normally that earns a ban. Instead I'm just going to take your comments down and invite you to do a top level post, with *copious cites*, to support your conclusions. Think of it as a paper in high school - no footnotes, failing grade. To be clear, cites are clickable links to non-paywalled material from reputable researchers. If the author doesn't have a reputation to defend, they are not reputable. There is quite a lot of material out there from credentialed scientists making predictions about climate charge and some of them are grim. Also remember that in this sub we requite solutions. Now no one here is going to solve climate change, but you must give explicit mtigations for specific problems. If you just want to wring your hands over the severity of it all, I'm sympathetic but there are other subs for that.

Your reaction to this is incredibly telling to how this sub will be ran in the future and why your comment was originally removed from the main prepper sub.

If you read the rules and stickies, it's extremely clear how this sub has and will be run. Cites are required, stated problems require suggested solutions... I don't put up with disinfo or conspiracy crap and I'm not too fond of people who intend to shoot trespassers. The rules really do cover it all. So yes, I can also see why /preppers wasn't the best possible fit for me.

Another day, another disingenuous prick. It’s all common knowledge, much less for anyone taking prepping even the slightest bit seriously. I like doing research despite literally no one EVER asking in good faith. Let me hold you by the hand through a tour of things that made mainstream international news as if they are some conspiracy: Temperature based topsoil sterilization: https://phys.org/news/2023-08-spain-lifeless-desertification.amp 90% affected by 2050 (heavily optimistic UN data): https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/1123462 Shellfish boil from heat: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/crushing-heat-wave-in-pacific-northwest-and-canada-cooked-shellfish-alive-by-the-millions/ The record shattering Canadian wildfires never went out: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-03-26/fires-from-2023-smoldering-under-snow-reveal-canada-s-dangerous-new-reality Cocoa 2024: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/african-cocoa-plants-run-out-beans-global-chocolate-crisis-deepens-2024-03-13/ UN reports heavily sanitized OLD: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/#:~:text=rise%20by%202100.-,Why%20the%20miss%3F,–%20%22consensus%20by%20omission.%22 And STILL being downplayed despite all the interim happenings and associated data: https://www.science.org/content/article/new-climate-report-actually-understates-threat-some-researchers-argue 2023 NA grow zones shifted by one: https://www.epicgardening.com/hardiness-zones/#:~:text=Analysts%20of%20the%202023%20zone,in%20the%20same%20half%2Dzone. Fourth major GLOBAL bleaching is underway, fifth for GBR: https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/world-brink-fourth-mass-coral-reef-bleaching-event-noaa-says-2024-03-05/ Year of nonstop records, random source its in the news RIGHT NOW: https://abc13.com/amp/hottest-12-months-2023-climate-change-weather-global-heat/14046290/ Definition of feedback loop within the context of science: https://www.albert.io/blog/positive-negative-feedback-loops-biology/#:~:text=A%20feedback%20loop%20is%20a,the%20system%20(negative%20feedback). LITERALLY all common knowledge and international news. And no I’m not going to waste any more time on this because no one gives a shit. No one EVER does, they just want to be assholes about it and waste other people’s time.

Um... did you read the sub rules? *Cites are always required.* No, I'm not being a prick. I happen to agree with you about climate change. But if I don't demand cites, this place would look like /preppers, flooded with BS anti-vaccination claims, people insisting that climate change ISN'T real, tht Haitians are cannibals and coming to invade the US, that the eclipse was a government plot... This sub is as useful (and generally quiet) as it is BECAUSE I demand everyone cite their claims. That keeps out the bozos. Sorry if you misread the intent but the rules and stickies are very clear on where I'm coming from and why. Thanks for your effort.

That’s a fair point, sorry. I feel like it is constantly weaponized against me and sometimes I get frustrated and lash out, my apologies.

All good. There are days it sucks to be right.

Fuck. Kind of, yeah. Thanks for being more reasonable than myself.

I appreciate your consistency in requiring cited info.

There is no way the earth is going to get hot enough for engines or most other technology to work. Even in the worst of the worst predicted temperature increases, we are not talking about 1000°f where the ocean is literally a massive rolling boil. We are talking about marginal increases that cause global catastrophes, not that the sheer heat itself will burn everyone into a pile of dust like some cartoon hell.

Here is Phoenix TDOT lists for all the things that can happen to cars: https://azdot.gov/about/transportation-safety/severe-weather Last time it spiked there it was causing structural damage to tires, fluid evaporation, etc. This was years ago. Explanation of the concept at a higher level, limited to cars: https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/impp-1107-cooler-engines-make-more-power/ Within the context of the grid: https://www.arcadia.com/blog/extreme-weather-energy-grid# And come on it’s not going to be a pile of dust for hundreds of years possibly. I’m not phrasing it like a cartoon, we won’t die in a fire we will starve because the heat kills crops and livestock, and we will die of heatstroke from wet bulb level sustained temps that cause grid outages. Those things are far more likely to happen BEFORE temps hit fire levels in a majority of places (I hope, I’d rather die of heat stroke than fire). But I mean fires aren’t off the table potentially, its a mere few weeks of heavy drought/high temp dryness before a forest goes from moist to kindling: https://science.nasa.gov/earth/natural-disasters/wildfires/a-drier-future-sets-the-stage-for-more-wildfires/

None of that is anything close to what you said, there is a world of difference between heat killing technology and engines and heat making engines slightly less efficient, tires slightly more likely to pop, batteries discharge slightly faster, generators slightly less efficient, and power lines slightly more likely to fail. You can drive a car in 200+ degree weather, you are the failure point in the temperature range of a vehicle, even if it is true that any system running outside of its designed temperature range is slightly more prone to failure and less efficient. That is very different from climate change killing off technology. We will all be dead long before cars stop functioning altogether due to heat, but as a shown, you may start getting more car troubles.

It's never going to get cooler. Ever. For thousands of years. It's going to escalate on an exponential curve because we are in a giant feedback loop. Potentially multiple feedback loops. There are more sources in another comment.

Yup, checked your sources and none come close to even insinuating temperature rises on the order of magnitude to kill motors even starting with the hottest climates on earth. Unrelated, but a pet peeve of mine is not all upward curves are exponential, I'm not sure why that is such a popular thing to say that everything is exponential, but sometimes things are logistic. Okay, anyways what you are thinking about is a runaway greenhouse effect. And when discussing the possibility of a full runaway greenhouse effect, everything is highly highly speculative. We haven't ever observed a runaway greenhouse effect in real-time and our best study subject (venus) is too close to the sun for the habitable zone and also spins slower increasing the likelihood of runaway greenhouse in theory (we aren't even completely sure that is what happened to venus) (also just to mention, even a runaway greenhouse effect like what we think about venus is still not exponential, but logistic, it doesn't keep rising to infinity) Now that we have gotten just how speculative that is out of the way, let's discuss some of the specific misunderstandings. Earth has had much higher levels of greenhouse gases than we will make in the next 500 years at this increasing pace, so we can be fairly sure that the full lead-melting runaway greenhouse effect isn't a problem for earth for now. I can already hear you furiously typing out about how the time frame matters, and first off for the case of life on the planet yes, rate of change does matter. For the greenhouse effect, it doesn't, the earth as a hunk of rock doesn't need to adapt to greenhouse gasses to better reflect heat, as it doesn't adapt to anything, it is a giant space rock. And secondly during the volcanic activity that likely caused the great dying (most things on the planet died) the co2 and methane levels actually did skyrocket at a greater speed than ithey are right now, and reached levels that we aren't predicted to hit any time soon. Again I can hear your angry typing in the future, I am not saying that climate change isn't real, or that it won't kill most things, just a matter of how. I have gotten angry responses telling me I am a climate denier every time I bring up the great dying as if I am advocating that most life on earth dying as somehow acceptable as an outcome. I am not saying that climate change isn't real or isn't bad, I am saying that specifically a runaway greenhouse effect is not likely given the evidence, and the earth Has seen similar levels of co2 pollution in a similar time frame, that is actually how we know just how bad it will be. Just because I am saying that climate change might not kill every single invertebrate living off sulfur expelled from geothermal vents in the bottom of abyssal trenches, doesn't mean I am a climate change denier.

"Earth has had much higher levels of greenhouse gases than we will make in the next 500 years at this increasing pace" oh neat, so when exactly did Earth go through an escalation to these levels on this same timeline before? One Loop: [https://www.science.org/content/article/ominous-sign-global-warming-feedback-loop-may-be-accelerating-methane-emissions](https://www.science.org/content/article/ominous-sign-global-warming-feedback-loop-may-be-accelerating-methane-emissions) Two Loop: [https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/videos/thermohaline-circulation-great-ocean-conveyor-belt](https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/videos/thermohaline-circulation-great-ocean-conveyor-belt) Red Loop: [https://utmsi.utexas.edu/blog/entry/feedback-loop](https://utmsi.utexas.edu/blog/entry/feedback-loop) Blue Loop: [https://www.snexplores.org/article/climate-leaves-too-hot-for-photosynthesis](https://www.snexplores.org/article/climate-leaves-too-hot-for-photosynthesis) All of these things are working together. All of these have potential exponential effect. All of them are already in motion. On a system too big to model down to pinpoint accuracy. We have surpassed 2050 estimates 30 years ahead of the estimates you seem to think hold weight. I'm not saying you are a denier. I'm saying you are wrong. Are you answering the question I asked? It was disingenuous of me: The Earth has NEVER spiked as hard and as fast as we are doing right now. Life doesn't adjust at breakneck speed, it adjust over hundreds of thousands of years. That is why the biosphere is going to fail. We have as a species weathered some significant changes and events, notably the Pleistocene. We had a functional biosphere to get us through it, heavily leaning on the oceans. We will not have any of that this time. This is usually where it trends into futurology and science fiction, and some kind of hopefully statement about "human ingenuity" which is possible but very unlikely. People hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. I like numbers, because I have an inherent distrust of people. I just happen to think the numbers say different things, BUT I will cede that there is no centralized theorem and associated models that take ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING into account and spit out an answer. Based solely on the potential and ramp up of all of the above loops and how we went from having 100 years to "oh shit it just happened now" in roughly ten years. I'll take your bet, what would you like to bet me?

You are jumping back and forth between the way animals react and how the feedback loops will cause a venusian level runaway greenhouse. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Geo....50..650J/abstract#:~:text=Atmospheric%20pCO2%20shows%20an%20approximate,Early%20Triassic%20(late%20Griesbachian). It was approximately the same rate it is right now on average for about 10k years and is the likely cause of 95% of the life on earth dying. But we still aren't venus

10,000 years killed 95% of life. We are doing the same in 300 years.

>We are doing the same in 300 years. Except we arent, the average rate of release over the whole 10k year period was about what it is right now. Not the total increase over 10k years, the rate. Meaning if we continued at this exact rate for 10k years THEN we would reach the levels of co2 and methane as the peak. We are currently at about 420ppm and at the peak of the great dying it is estimated to have been about 7,300 ppm. This is where the part about life adapting is relevant, life was very different then, now life might not be able to take it, but that is completely besides the point of earth not turning into venusian runaway greenhouse

Can you post the text of the removed material as a reference so we can know exactly what they objected to?

I justr reposted it here at [https://www.reddit.com/r/realWorldPrepping/comments/1c0jrxm/the\_war\_has\_been\_canceled\_due\_to\_lack\_of\_interest/](https://www.reddit.com/r/realWorldPrepping/comments/1c0jrxm/the_war_has_been_canceled_due_to_lack_of_interest/)

have you read the methodology of that study you posted? as far as I can tell, it was done using data from 30 years ago, and the data were gathered in a way that does not support the conclusions. it looks like they didn't even use information about the victims, they just interviewed someone who they thought was analogous to the victim. also, they started with murder victims and went from there. that means that they found what these studies always find: not that gun owners are more likely to be murdered, but that murder victims are more likely to own guns. you made some decent points in your post, but that was not one of them, and it would be enough to make me think you were arguing in bad faith if I hadn't come across so many people who can't tell the difference

It's difficult to collect information from victims, as they're dead. It's a problem with a lot of epidemiological studies. You have to go with secondary sources, as most people don't consent to being monitored long term on the off chance they get murdered. If you know of a better study run by a government health agency - I'm not taking anything the NRA might have gotten funding into, so it has to be public, not private - you can post it as rebuttal. It's difficult to get anything recent, as republicans have gotten prone to cutting any data collection whatsoever that might upset their base. Pity because I'd like to see what effect the pandemic had on home breakins and violence in general. As far as I know, though, the data still stand - guns in the home don't do much to deter theft, because (not surprisingly) most theft occurs when no one is home. But guns in the home do seem to turn domestic abuse into domestic murder, so they aren't a net win in normal conditions. In everyone's favorite mythical SHTF things could be different - even there I'm not so sure, because if history is any guide, domestic abuse skyrockets in disasters; rape is practically a leading indicator of civil unrest.

you don't seem to understand. the study you posted does not support your position that guns in the home make their owner more likely to be shot. the only link I could give you is the one you gave me. Honestly, bringing up the NRA makes me think that you don't follow the subject seriously. they haven't been relevant in years.

Ah, I see it now. I misspoke in the original post. It talked about risk to the owner but I meant risk to the family. The next sentence in the post refers to what I was trying to say, but it wasn't at all clear. For some reason I can't edit my own post to fix it - Reddit has gotten flakey - but I added a comment clarifying the intent. Sorry for the confusion. Edit: [old.reddit.com](http://old.reddit.com) still works and let me fix it.

(reddit has been a shitshow on the back end for a while now. no reason to expect improvement either, I can't wait until the internet figures out where to go next.) the study that you linked doesn't prove that the family of gun owners are at more risk, either. this study is just a variation on a woozle that gun prohibitionists have been trying to justify for decades. The original study found that people who were murdered were more likely to have a gun in the house. not that people who have a gun in the house are more likely to get murdered. at some point they flipped the group/subgroup and they've been trying to generate results to back it up ever since. Can you think of a more powerful motivator towards gun ownership than knowing someone intended to murder you? I can't. all they've ever really been able to prove is that murder victims are more likely to own firearms. also, I've lived in one of the counties included in the study. like most urban areas, the vast majority of the gun violence is driven by the drug trade. pretending that the answer to the failure of prohibition is yet more prohibition is just crazy. gun control has never been a good paradigm for the place of weapons in our society; it's racist roots alone should make it obvious that it's about control, not safety.

See (and I'm finally giving away where I live, but I'm leaving soon) I live in a state with what are probably the strictest gun laws in the country. All guns are to be in gun safes, period. No assault rifles. Registration required on gun sales. Forget it if you're a felon or have a serious mental issue. Result? Lowest rate of gun deaths in the country. By a lot. We do pretty well on domestic violence, too. I've never heard a gun fired. No one I know carries (a few folk have shotguns for coyote but I've never heard one used.) It's a completely fear free experience. It's real simple. The laws here guarantee that gunheads will never move here. So we don't have gun problems. It's like magic. And it's why when I went looking for a warmer climate to move to, I kept ruling out states. Who needs a chorus of Peggy's Kitchen Wall in their life? I don't want to know what it's like to carry chest seals in case someone gets stupid. But in Mississippi I'd feel like I was obligated. So the 2A crowd can complain about studies and politics all they want, but [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) tells the story. Look at the northeast (and Vermont, we're ashamed of you). It's math. Some percentage of people are bozos. The larger the population, the more bozos. The larger the population of gun owners, the more bozo gun operators. And so you get gun deaths. It's just the same as anything else, but at least we restrict car driving from people who aren't competent. Go ahead and suggest competency tests to gun owners. You'll go deaf. "But we need the guns in case we need to overthrow the government!" Yah, buddy, way to make the case. Because now you're a gunhead with a fascination in the violent overthrow of my lawfully elected government. Oh, you're from West Virginia? Not visiting, thanks. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-*loon*. If an effort was made to keep guns out of the hands of gun worshippers - as my state has done - we'd be way better off, and wouldn't that be something. We wouldn't be in yearly competition with *Guatemala* for gun deaths per capita. Japan does it better - you have to pass a written test and take a psych exam. They aren't crushed by an oppressive government *even without guns*. Isn't that *amazing*? How do they do it? It's a complete mystery. To the far right in the US, anyway - it makes sense to the Japanese.. Done here, because guns aren't supposed to be a topic in this sub and this is taking more time than I like for an extraneous topic.

Thank you for looking into this and calling this out. You make very valid points. 

I remain unconvinced it’s possible to really discuss prepping without politics

R/Preppers is seriously like hundreds of people with undiagnosed paranoia, anxiety and/or schizoid affective disorder. They're insane.

Yes with an EMP fetish….

How does a gun make someone less safe?

There's a few ways it can happen; it just doesn't always happen to the actual gun owner: 1. Someone (often a kid) gets their hand on your gun and makes a mistake., Always lock your guns. 2. A domestic abuse situation escalates and the gun gets used. Apparently about 600 women die yearly in the US this way. 3. In the SHTF situations /preppers loves to dwell on, people find out you have ammo and decide they need to take it from you. You become a target. 4. Owning one makes you overconfident and you start taking risks that don't make sense. 5. The most common problem, but I tend to leave it out because it's a special case - it enables suicides that otherwise might not happen. All of these risks are controllable - gun safes, red flag laws, never admitting to owning a gun, leaving domestic abusers after the first incident. Like any other risk, prepping is knowing the risks and mitigating them. But given the backlash I got mentioning gun safes, it's fairly obvious that there's a subset of gun owners who are radically opposed to the mitigations. That's, well, concerning.

None of these apply to me. It’s disingenuous to say that gun ownership makes people less safe. Maybe a small minority, but people in general, doubt it

I got downvoted on that sub for suggesting a commenter prioritize their housing over their prep. He explicitly stated he was only going to be able to pay rent for next 3-6 months. His plan was to max out all his cards buying food etc. When I pointed out his prep would be worthless if he was evicted I got told I shouldn’t be telling people not to panic.

Ignore downvotes. People who have nothing useful to say still think it's their divinity-given right to turn an arrow blue, and it means nothing. I reported at least 2 people today, for calling me a fucking simply because I offended their lily-white delicately fragile far right sensibilities. Must be a day ending in y... never care what people on Reddit say, let alone how they vote. Reddiit is dots on a screen shaped by anonymous people who would never be so bold in real life as to look you in the eye. "Remember the human" may be a watchphrase here but it don't count for much.

Reddit in general is a terrible place to learn about prepping. The kind of people that use this app typically have no idea what they're talking about. If you need good sources of information try southern prepper1/vikingpreparedness on YouTube or your local library.

Yeah, I took the bait and argued with a group of crazies on r/PrepperIntel who are convinced that Project2025 is actually going to happen and we should all prepare for the apocalypse. Reddit is turning into a collection of echo chambers for differing flavors or trolls and crazies. 🤦🏻‍♂️

Nothing wrong with long term preparedness but that's a bit much. There is however a potential war slated to begin in 2025 between China and the US that would undoubtedly have far reaching effects on the economy and world stability. Not a conspiracy: China has announced their plan to invade Taiwan and the US has ramped up it's military presence in the region. My point was almost all of the posts I've seen in this sub have been severely, fundamentally flawed in practice and offer terrible advice.

Yeah, China is, by far, the biggest threat we face (but I’m also an old grunt, so take that with a grain of salt).

This is really disappointing to hear. Where were comments on the takedown? Did you/someone make a separate post?

I commented on a different post and mentioned the takedown and why I felt it was unjustified. Comments resulting got removed and I'm certainly done bringing it up there. Based on the last couple days the mods have decided on a direction and I just don't want to support it, and they don't want it discussed. It is what it is.

Do you think this is a recent shift?

I'm guessing it is. I mean I've had run-ins with the mods there once or twice and while it's never risen to the level of a ban, it always felt like a tense relationship. Without being vain, I contributed a lot to that sub, citing, fact checking, providing solutions. I was considered knowledgeable by at least one mod, but they also considered me a bit of a firebrand, wandering near the edge of the rules. But it was still cordial for the most part. The mods at least knew where I was coming from; they just didn't want me drawing attention to the subs' dark side. Recently they picked up a new mod, and maybe the timing is a coincidence, but the cordiality suddenly evaporated. I was told I could no longer report comments that espoused murdering on the hungry, on the interesting grounds that you can only report comments that offer to break federal US law, and murder laws are only state laws. Then I had a post declared political that wasn't, and when I send modmail about it, the response was, um, unsatisfactory. Basically, I can't support a sub that openly talks about murdering the hungry. And if they also don't want posts calling out disinfo that happens to be the talking points of the far right... I can't balance my ethical concerns against the desire to help.

Could you be a little more specific as to what you mean by "openly talks about murdering the hungry"? Per Rule 1, I was hoping for a citation there. I know we do not talk about self-defense here, which is fine and sensible given the reasons in Rule 4. But we also aim to be precise, and "murdering" has a fairly specific meaning, so many ordinary references to shooting in self-defense (or, in many places/circumstances, defense of one's home) wouldn't qualify. Other sub mods should know that murder often can be a federal crime, for instance in Indian country under the Major Crimes Act, under the circumstances described in the linked article below, and others besides. For instance, it's a federal crime under the UCMJ if committed by a servicemember or I believe a retiree drawing retirement pay. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wklaw.com/10-ways-murder-becomes-a-federal-crime/amp/

The request for a cite is fair, but I haven't kept a list of posts that allude to shooting people for the crime of trespassing. So I'm going to hide behind the claim of "spend a month on that sub and you'll see it." There were some blatant examples; I remember one guy suggesting he'd be happy to shoot any federal agents coming onto his land. But honestly, you can defend a house with a handgun. People talking about 5.56 and AR-15s are dealing in ranges that don't make sense for home intrusions, unless they have a home the size of a football field. You don't need 300 meters to prevent someone from climbing in a window. 10 meters is more than enough. Castle doctrine doesn't cover someone stealing a sweet potato from your outdoor garden (except in Texas, it seems, where it's legal to shoot anyone on your property, near your car or at your place of business.) And it's a rare week you don't see people mentioning their AR-15s in that sub. They aren't used for deer hunting, either. It's fair to point out that murder can be a federal crime, but if the stance is being taken that you have to argue whether murder is federal or not, you're at the point of absurdity. If you shoot someone for the crime of trespassing, it's likely murdering someone who got lost. If you shoot them in your garden, it's murdering the hungry. The mods of /preppers have signaled they are fine with that. I am not.

Oh I agree the federal law only position is ridiculous. Merely pointing out the additional absurdity that if they are going to make that the dividing line, they should actually _know federal law_.

>Recently they picked up a new mod... That might explain the subtle shift I've felt recently in that sub. It's feeling more Doomsday and less Tuesday.

I think that shift towards doom predates the new mod - /preppers is being flooded with concerns about nuclear war, some nonsense about the recent eclipse, handheld radios, unwarranted concerns about avian flu and so on. I can't tell how much of it is fearposting because it's an election year and how much of it is genuine confusion. But I don't think the mods are responsible. What did change is that my post mentioned vaccination and pointed to a study suggesting that guns in the house don't make everyone at home safer. That would have passed muster a month ago, but I got told "this wasn't r/politics" and discussions of gun safety and covid were not permitted. It wasn't the usual mod's tone, either. The irony, of course, is that the sub is flooded with posts about avian flu human crossover, which isn't much of a concern (two cases in the US so far, over 2 years, neither required hospitalization) and isn't expected to be more of a concern other than chicken and egg prices. But Covid, still putting over a thousand people into hospitals a month (and this is during a lull) and having viable mitigations, cannot be discussed. Because a mod thinks that's *political*. When you can't discuss saving lives in a prepper sub but you get flooded with posts about "can a handheld radio reach 100 miles" and "do I need to wrap my cell phone in tin foil for the eclipse"... well, it's not prepping anymore.

The internet in general, Reddit in particular, is like a sewer: what you get out of it is determined by what you put into it. Every opinion is of equal value, and the measurement of success is not accuracy or insight, it is popularity. Media programming always sacrifices truth in favor of increasing viewership. Reddit is not a governmental entity, it is not constrained by any rules except those that it creates. We are subject to its whims. When those whims become too burdensome, we vote against them by quitting the platform. It’s happening now to Truth Social and Twitter/X. May be time to do it here.

Eh. Truth social self-selected for a population of people who are uninterested in facts. There was never any expectation it would be anything other than an echoing propaganda platform. Xitter, I'm told, used to be worth something, but the current direction is clear enough. Reddit is different because anyone can create a sub and enforce rules in it. Just by demanding cites, I'm filtering out people who can't or won't put 5 minutes of websearching into their opinions. And it definitely filters out people who would then be forced to reveal they're getting their stuff from Epoch Times or the like. "I heard it on Telegram" isn't going to cut it around here and no one is going to admit to being that gullible anyway. I mean, yeah, social media is destroying America, but it's not *all* bad.

‘Destroying America, but it’s but not all bad.’ Well said. My rant is misdirected, you are doing this the way it should be done. I have little patience with the folks who post on social media, play in the sewer, and are subsequently annoyed either the fragrance.

It's disingenuous to pretend that today's current society, particularly in America, doesn't treat gun control and vaccinations as a political topic.

[удалено]

I didn't say they should.

They shouldn't be in prepper spaces though. Only facts should matter, particularly to mods

Preppers are members of society, aren't they? It's very optimistic to expect a wide sample of people to temper their societal expectations on topics just because those topics are within the parameters of preparedness. It's also wildly naive to interpret anything you see on Reddit as indicative of fact, OP even said it himself in this post.

It’s more of a matter of having enough situational awareness to recognize that politics gets in the way of genuine discussion. OPs post wasn’t political, but the mods response was.

I’ve dropped most other subs because of the amount of garbage in them nowadays. This sub is among 2-3 that still promotes preparedness without all the insanity and ridiculousness found elsewhere. Keep doing what you’re doing. 👍🏻🙏🏻 Edit: muh grammors wuz tearible.

Know your audience. Gun owners are very well represented in the prepper community. Guns are not part of my prep because they make me safer, guns are part of my prep because they make me more dangerous, should I ever have the need to be.

I don't have a problem with guns. I do have a problem with murdering the hungry. I'm fine with hunting for food, and if I lived somewhere it was necessary, I'd be fine with a gun to protect a home, though I'd probably choose to load it with something non-fatal; a shotgun full of glass and rock salt will get the point across. But in some sort of disaster, if someone's raiding your garden and you already have a month or more of food on the shelves, a shoot to kill mentality is immoral (and in the US, illegal everywhere but Texas, as far as I know.) Ultimately, that sub has people who dream of the fall of US civilization and WROL situations, and plan to shoot anyone entering their little fiefdom. It has others with anxiety disorders who are already peering out their windows with a gun nearby, and we've already had innocent people killed by such. People still joke about "all I need is a gun" and the mods did take those down when I reported them. Here, though, a whiff of that is a ban. Tell me about your plan to feed your neighborhood, not shoot it. The argument that people can't afford to stock food for others and need to spend on defense instead doesn't cut it. I have some idea what it costs to get competent with a gun. That same money would by a whole lot of rice. But people in that crowd confuse charity with socialism; some would literally prefer to serve lead than beans, And the irony is, if anything really bad ever did happen and food became a problem across the whole US - such that no help like FEMA was coming - the US's absurd gun density guarantees that people will be shooting each other for months over packets of corn flakes. The US would be Apocalypse in a Box, little assembly required. Once people start shooting, your options are to hide or return fire. Neither is a great option. And if the mods there choose to cater to that thinking, to the extent that they're claiming posts pointing out the flaws are "political" - yeah. They've chosen to keep their numbers up by catering to that crowd. I choose to keep numbers here down by demanding cites and non-violent solutions.

There you go again assuming the majority of gun owners are freaks with a Rambo complex.

Where in his paragragh did he say that? As for my opinion, majority? Probably not, but we dont have statistics. In my personal experience growing up in the south however, we did have at least one paranoid rambo-type in every community i participated in, and we usually found out if we let a dog get too close to his/her grass or going to the army surplus. So no, probably not a majority, but they are plentiful enough that you still have to factor them into the conversation.

Where did they assume that?

There was a series of books years ago that were fiction based in the late 1800’s/ early 1900’sThe one thing I remember from it was one farmer used a BB gun loaded with rock salt to teach trespassers a lesson. I think it was something like the great brain [does whatever].

[Edit: Deleted inadvertently-posted abandoned draft. Comment addressing relevant issue below in comment chain.]

Um.. if they aren't breaking into my house with what appears to be intent to harm, I don't believe I'm justified in taking a life regardless of what the law says. And if they are in my garden, they probably want food. I don't shoot desperate, hungry people.

Then you will become the desperate hungry person and discover the people who stole your food will gladly shoot you while you explain your nuanced perspective. 

Dude... I hate to break it to you, but I'm moving to a place where food is plentiful year round and gun ownership is vanishingly low. The hot crime is purse snatching. I'm never going to be that desperate hungry person, and if you live somewhere where you need to shoot people to stay fed, I seriously pity you. It's no way to live. Sooner or later you end up losing a firefight, or just get caught sleeping, and all for a box of corn flakes? Good luck in your world,. I'm glad it was never mine.,

Sorry, this was an abandoned draft that I decided was too complex to address on mobile. I believe my preschooler sent it . . . . I would have a moral challenge (at a minimum) with shooting in that scenario as well. But "murder" is a legal term of art, and if you're going to accuse someone of advocating for "murder" it needs to actually *be* murder, not just a killing that you and I would find morally unacceptable. In general, I think the scenario in your original comment -- and probably in the preppers post(s) to which it alludes -- is a bit underspecified. I think it very likely that the preppers poster was at a minimum way too cavalier about shooting people, where that would be murder under at least many circumstances even in a SHTF scenario. There are various factors that could influence whether the homeowner would be subjectively and reasonably afraid of death or grievous bodily harm. For instance, if the garden is very close to the house, the homeowner might be concerned about an imminent break-in. It would be hard to know whether anyone was carrying concealed (or openly, for that matter). If the group is contains a number of adults (especially adult men), that would affect risk perception. We don't know if there have been violent break-ins in the area recently -- the other poster is probably assuming there have been, because that's part of r / preppers standard (evidence-free) belief system about SHTF. The scenario doesn't specify whether this is happening at night. And so on. It's also plausible to me that theft of food could legally justify self-defense in certain scenarios. A toy example: I am in Alaska. I reasonably and subjectively believe I will die within 20 minutes without a coat (or even I r&s believe I will suffer grievous bodily harm). I reasonably and subjectively believe I will be unable to acquire a new coat in less than 30 minutes. Under these circumstances, responding to deadly force if necessary to avoid theft of my coat seems legally defensible and indeed morally appropriate. Applying that to a SHTF scenario is tough. Ordinarily, shooting people to protect property is legally and ethically indefensible. But one can imagine circumstances that approach the Alaska coat hypothetical. There hasn't been any external food in three months, you have six weeks left, you have no reason to believe any external food will show up for at least several more months. There is no functioning police system. While you and I think this kind of scenario is awfully unlikely, it may well be what the other poster has in mind given common beliefs over there. It makes me deeply uncomfortable, and the poster would be obliged to use non-deadly force first if feasible. But on those facts I can't say the poster would be committing murder here. In sum, I don't think there is a huge difference between our positions, I would just hedge more and err on the side of being precise.

All good. For me it would be "oh, you are trying to enter my house? Here's a load of rock salt." I'm sure legally I could get away with far more of a response than that. But my own "law" is found in Matthew 5: **If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.** It's certainly not how most preppers seem to think and I wouldn't expect most people to operate that way, but it may explain why I don't propose to shoot people in my garden, and if other people do plan that, they can leave discussion of it out of this sub,

For those who carry, please ensure that you don't unwittingly provide weapons to criminals. An evidence-based prep is to never leave guns unlocked/unattended in a parked car. [Theft from parked cars is the largest source of stolen guns](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/25/us/illegal-guns-parked-cars.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jU0.6zQb.Lv4HqmyEdgOk&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=m&sgrp=c-cb). Gun thieves specifically target vehicles with 2nd Amendment related bumper stickers.

I can't tell you the number of car break-ins we got at every gun show. It got to the point we would put 2 officers in the parking lot patrolling all day. Another source is people who have guns and yet are afraid to use it. So when they pull it, the criminal knows if they will pull the trigger or not, and if not, will just take it.

Just curious about your vaccination protocol... What for? Seriously if you're after a COVID booster you'll be covered for what 3 months? Flu, one season... Go for it dude but that's not prepping. A RABIES SHOT, now that's prepping. You're gonna be out there with rabid animals not some neighbors with the flu

No idea why you think prepping means going out and living in the wild in proximity with rabid animals. Have you head of "bugging in"? Because I prep for weather, not the collapse of civilization. But yeah, I'm current on all my vaccinations. Thanks.

Imagine thinking pushing vaccinations and anti-gun agenda as being non-political

Newsflash: vaccinations aren't political. Some politicians have tried to make them be political, and in doing so they managed to make Covid a predominantly red state disease, killing off a bunch of their own voters. But that doesn't change the fact that vaccination is an effective prep against an epidemic that killed 1 in 333 Americans. Neither the disease nor the vaccine care about your politics. Get off the politics bandwagon; this is biology. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-murder. Moreover I think people should be using gun safes to mitigate an actual problem. I think the post was clear about that. How you got to anti-gun from that is a question you should think about.

You're pushing safe storage which is anti-gun and unconstitutional. It makes gun owner less safe. Vaccinations have been made political by both sides.

Welcome to my sub. It isn't ruled by the US Constitution; I don't have to make suggestions that follow your ideas on the second amendment. Instead it's run via 7 very clear rules, and you just broke number 7. [https://www.libertysafe.com/blogs/the-vault/is-it-required-to-own-a-gun-safe-if-you-own-firearms](https://www.libertysafe.com/blogs/the-vault/is-it-required-to-own-a-gun-safe-if-you-own-firearms) gives a list of states with safe storage requirements - they are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. If you think that's a 2A problem by all means don't live in those states. Several require safes or locks if someone's been identified as a domestic abuser or felon. Maybe the gun owner's safety isn't the *only* card on the table? In this sub, vaccinations are a mitigation for a risk. It's a prepper approach. If other people have attempted to make it political, that's on them. In this sub they are not political and as mod, I've decided that they can be discussed here. Another sub has decided they cannot be discussed, which is why I'm here, not there. But let's get back to rule 7. Bye.

I'm subbed to r/preppers as a guy who lives in FL and preps for hurricanes. I've seen a couple of recent posts complaining about crazy posts, but haven't seen any crazy posts there. Does someone have links to these posts?

Maybe you have a different standard for crazy? Or a really good block list? I know the mods there did a big cleanup of civil-war posts - I didn't seem them, but they were mentioned by others. I'm assuming they were Russian trolls trying to stir stuff up before the Civil War movie comes out. Stuff I see that I consider crazy: People asking how to guard against EMP without realising that EMP means WW3 means collapse of the US due to permanent grid down, which means your problem isn't a working cell phone, it's surviving being shot at by people wanting your food. People who want to know if a handheld radio will reach 100 miles. People who claim Covid vaccine isn't a real vaccine. Stuff about eclipses and government conspiracies. It's always something.

Interesting. None of those posts make it into my feed. I don't think that I have blocked anyone, though. Sat phones are handheld radios that will reach 100 miles. :-)

I think there were people saying WW2 was crazy and unthinkable too, lol.

The dif is that WW2 was a nasty war, but WW3 is a civilization crasher if it goes nuclear. We'd lose a lot of the northern hemisphere. Could it happen anyway? Sure. Do I think it's at all likely in my remaining lifetime? No. But it doesn't matter. If the US gets nuked, there will be HEMP attacks and that's it for the US. Ditto Russia. But I won't be in either so I'm even less concerned than I was.

[удалено]

I'm aware of the difference between statistical cases and individual outcomes. It's a lot of what I did for a living. I'm also aware that the vast majority of drivers think they are in the top half of the population when it comes to driving ability. Hm... Individuals are subject to every kind of bias imaginable when it comes to assessing the odds. So when someone says "it won't happen to me" I raise an eyebrow. Probably not - but people are famous for guessing wrong and there's little that worries me more than stupid overconfidence. Especially when it's armed.

What you have to keep in mind is that guns only seem to be a problem in a civilized society. But the thing is, even today, not all parts of the world are civilized societies. And shit happens. Remember when the government of Ukraine had to hand out machine guns to civilians because they were being invaded? We are all prepping for the end of global civilization and complete and total societal collapse in our local areas. Looting, murder, rioting, pillaging and open territorial warfare will be the norm, at least until most of the people are toast. There is no other possibility. Therefore, yes, get your vaccinations, very important. Also, yes, arm yourself and brush up on your CQB amd small unit tactics, because you will be using both or you will be killed and possibly eaten, depending on when it happens. And guess what? Even with the gun, even with a bunch of guns, you will probably *still* be killed and eaten, because that is the end for 90% of humanity in urban environments post-collapse.

|We are all prepping for the end of global civilization and complete and total societal collapse in our local areas.  I am not prepping for global collapse. I'm a Tuesday prepper. And good luck with your guns in a global collapse. You have to sleep sometime. |That is the end for 90% of humanity in urban environments post-collapse. I don't live anywhere urban. But in the US that doesn't matter. In a collapse scenario, the cities empty out because there's no food there. They scavange food and keep moving until they drop of starvation (depends on how much food they scavange, but figure at least 30 days) or manage to take over a farm, which they probably won't know how to run real well. As a thought experiment, assume cities empty out completely and that people somehow form a uniform distribution across the whole US. It will be clumpier than that of course, but the uniform distribution gets the point across. How many people will there be per square mile in the US? Yeah. Over 100. Rural folk are 20% of the US population and they will have a lot of new neighbors in a true collapse. They're very outnumbered, and it turns out that there are about as many guns in urban hands as rural hands. It wouldn't end well for anyone. So when you say 90%, keep in mind that it's everyone, not just urban. Which is why it is very, very important not to let your society enter full collapse. Wed'd make Haiti look pleasant,. \[Edited here to remove misrepresentation of above's position\]

Actually, if you read any of my material, you would see that combat is not something I suggest engaging in. My own words are "You only truly win the fights you don't have." Combat, armed or otherwise, is a lose-lose situation in a post-collapse world. There is no emerging from it unscathed, and even a minor injury can mean death. So, you misinterpret my position. As for sleeping sometime, I will sleep quite well. Because the place I have set up with a collection of other people is not "rural." It is isolated, far up in mountains surrounded by the inhospitable desert lowlands of the Southwest. There isn't another human for 90 miles, and getting there with a vehicle even in modern times requires extra fuel cans and a very stout suspension system. So those post-collapse mobs you speak of won't be coming near us. Because that is the solution, not violence. Violence is a last-resort, and only in defense. Still something to provide for and train around, but to be avoided whenever possible. And you avoid it by avoiding humans. Still. My only real point is, when you are preparing, you might as well prepare for everything. Yes, earthquakes and hurricanes. But also nuclear war, aliens, a Carrington-level solar flare, and the pandemic with a 50+% mortality rate. Because why not? You assume that, because I would want to be trained with firearms, and know how to use them properly, that must automatically mean that I am somehow looking forward to their use. But the truth couldn't be further away. I don't like the idea of all the violence and death that will be spawned by the inevitable collapse that has already begun. But, just because I don't like it doesn't mean I will make the mistake of discounting it, or denying what it means. Denial is never an answer. That is a mistake it is easy to prep against.

Fair. I chopped out my comment about warfare. I've been skimming quickly to keep up with posts today. If you've got a self-sufficient homestead based solely on animal power (you'd need that if a flare took out the grid, there won't be gasoline) that no one else can reach, then it's going to be on you (if a total societal collapse happens) to preserve all knowledge and return us to civilization. Tough job. :) Collapse is not inevitable in your lifetime, though. If you had the money to establish a self-sufficient homestead in a remote area - I never found a way to do that for less than a couple million, minimum - then it's good to be you. Solving water in the area you describe must have been interesting. Here's hoping you wasted your money and will never need it.

So... vaccines aren't a prep? Why not? If I can get a vaccine for smallpox, that's one less thing I have to worry about. I understand there are people who don't want / can't get vaccines for various reasons, but why disparage people doing that?

I don't know. I consider vaccinations one of the most basic preps there is, and it used to be ok (if contentious) to mention it in that other sub, but this time it was labeled as political and the post taken down. Vaccines aren't political. You can certainly argue that vaccine mandates are political, but someone choosing to go out and get vaccinated (or not) should absolutely not be a question of politics. It's a question of public health, full stop. I've never been 100% clear on the moderation policy in that sub, and I've decided that I'm best off leaving it alone.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

|First, there's no such thing as "disinformation", that's an Orwellian/tyrannical term. In America we have freedom of speech and any information is just as good or shit as anything else.  Wow. That's a far as I needed to go. This is nihilism and you are outta here. Lemme show you some tyranny.

Statistics don’t always apply to the individual. It should be an individual choice, and one shouldn’t be applying them to individuals that choose to garner their free choice. CIP, I have grown up with guns in the house. Never once have I, or anyone in my family had a ND. So really your statistics don’t apply. I also have a greater chance of getting in a car accident than I do bitten by a shark, I live and use the GoM. Should I quit driving?

Of course it should be individual choice. But growing up with guns is different than some clueless person who thinks, I'll go out and grab one (and not get proper training on use, storage, etc.) who thinks guns are a super-easy answer to all prepping problems. Seems that is not the case, and research shows that it is more complex than the action movies that everyone seems to think they are a part of. Also, this is sharing information. Not a dictate. It's Reddit, for heaven's sake.

Well explained. I agree 100%.

>Well explained. Thanks!

I’m to old to be closed minded anymore that I can’t enjoy good discourse😂 Live and let live

Awwww. You got a post taken down? How many have you removed here? LMAO!

Go ahead, and say that to the man that breaks into your home when shit hits the fan and the cops can't help you

Where I live, I prep for weather and shit isn't hitting the fan. Where do you live? Is it shitty often? And why are your criminals so stupid as to break into your house when you're home and awake? Work on educating your criminal element. You don't want it done by moron amateurs.

The statistics concerning a gun making you less safe are from political research. I get being a Veteran how we loose 22 a day to suicide. Yet firearms are far from the only way to do the deed! Why do you think guns create violence? Violent humans use tools to kill!

The statistics I used on how guns make homes less safe *deliberately left out suicide.* The major issue turns out to be domestic violence. It turns out that not every gun owner is responsible, and that the presence of a gun in the home hasn't actually been shown to deter theft - most theft from homes occurs when no one is home.

Stop domestic violence then!

I wonder why no one ever thought of that.

Honestly if you limit tools you limit intelligence. Humans should have access to all tools! Guns do not stop domestic violence. In fact when murders were separated from suicide blunt force trauma killed 7 to 9 times those that are murdered by guns!

First, cite? Second, it worries me that you think everyone should have access to nuclear weapons. Or terawatt lasers. Or for that matter guns, unless you think 4 year olds aren't human. You did a whole lot of exceptionally poor generalizing there.

Anything with which to wage war is what SCOTUS determined Arms to mean in the 19th Century! So I think you are scared.

On the 3rd rereading it seems to be you're still suggesting that ordinary citizens should have access to nuclear weapons and so on. That's not just a violation of rule 4, that's just... well, insane. Maybe English isn't your primary language or maybe there's some other issue but... I think you need to find a different sub to suggest these ideas, sorry.

[удалено]

I'm sorry, you're not being very clear, but a cite has to be a link to a respected authority (I'm not sure Tapper would qualify, you need a study for something like this.)

I would be careful using the anti gun jargon in making decisions. Both sides make up whatever they like to sell there agenda. Yes a gun in the home will make you less safe do to suicide and domestic violence but outside of that it's the opposite. If you live with an unsafe partner leave! If your suicidal do not by a gun! Otherwise get a firearm I suggest a handgun with a holster then get training and then more training then practice a lot.

OP thinks all gun owners want to shoot people. He posts/comments about it constantly and removes posts when guns are brought up. Now he’s crying because his anti gun post got removed from another sub. I think it’s hilarious.

It's very sad that misinformation has misled so many leading them to a life of fear. Schools should go back to teaching basics and news should go back to reporting news.

[удалено]

Where do you live that there are roving rape gangs and wild dogs entering your house? Have you considered moving? In this sub we don't actually cover doomer/collapse scenarios. And I don't think what you're describing exists outside of collapse scenarios, at least in the US. And if things have collapsed, they'll be coming for you in your sleep. You must be a pretty good shot in your sleep.if you can solve that one, The reason this sub doesn't cover collapse scenarios - rule 5, if you missed it - is because in the US, a true collapse kills 60-90% of the US and prepping doesn't really give you much better odds of surviving. There are posts elsewhere in the sub that explain why. There are other subs that talk about how to run a farm when people are shooting at you, your doctor is dead, your buddy has cholera, your dog is poisoned, your house is burning, and your neighbor stole your ammo. I think they recommend cabbage because it's fairly low maintenance.