This article should trigger some debate among the community :)
- Thread starter BillMasen
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
I don't know about the rest of the article, but he's right about navigating around the conflict not through it.
we aren't all John Wayne or Rambo and not being seen make more sense than getting into a fire fight.
we aren't all John Wayne or Rambo and not being seen make more sense than getting into a fire fight.
I don't think there will be much debate. All he said in a slight anti gun bias, then backpedaled, is to not carry to heavy a rifle around. Travel as light as possible and avoid contact with any threats instead of taking them on.
Not much I can disagree on, I even said weaponry shouldn't be the primary focus on bugging in or bugging out. Avoidance will get one further than a pack full of ammo! The objective is to survive not engage in hostility and they way I see it let the hostiles kill each other, the be less son of a ******* I have to worry about.
John Wayne managed to navigate around going to WW2.
This seems pretty accurate to me. Avoiding conflict is better when possible - safer, cheaper, and less risk of exposure. Depending on the situation a rifle could certainly come in handy, but planning to go long distance on foot with it might not be the best plan. Of course there were the frontiersmen way back in the day that did it, so it is possible, though they often had horses too.
I carry every time I leave the house; usually a sub .40 on the hip. With all of the anti gun people now, I tell my wife that job number one in an active shooter, or attack situation we are not directly involved in, is to seek shelter and look for a way out, or find a defensible position and ONLY engage when necessary to defend ourselves. Used to be a day when I would have protected others, but that ship sailed when they decided I shouldn't be able to defend myself, because they are too afraid to defend themselves. They can call the police and wait. About a month ago in Portland, a guy robbed a bank and stabbed four women on his way out; killing two. I bet none of them ever thought they would need a gun to defend themselves. I bet every one of them wished they had one at the time. I would have done nothing but give a description and go home, safe, and lawsuit free.
The biggest problem with the article is that he doesn't address situation-specific needs. What do you expect to run into, or where are you? If I'm in Chicago, my 25 lb go bag would be 24 lbs of weapons & ammo. Crossing a desert? 24 lbs of water. Just trying to get home, then a compact carry with limited ammo as he describes works great. Like many things, it is very specific. But he makes a valid point: weapons are not your only priority. I'll leave it at that.
