Curious to know. How many in this forum have purchased or are planning to purchase a firearm in the immediate future to protect your home and possessions should TSHTF in Jan. 2000? I have been definitely considering it and have gone to my neighborhood gun shop for prices. Think I will make a purchase this weekend.

-- N. Smith (Taurus91@webtv.net), November 18, 1998

Answers

This subject irritates some on this forum. Before you ask, the weapons of (my) choice are: 1:) 12g Pump shotgun (Remington 870/Mossberg 500)($250)- home defense 2:) Ruger 10/22 rifle - light hunting, very reliable ($150) 3:) SKS 7.62mm - cheap, good all around hunting/defense weapon ($200) 4:) Handguns to consider; S&W .38 Special revolver - simple, easy to use ($300) Kel Tec P11 9mm - Excellent concealed carry weapon (about $200) Any Glock in 9mm or .45ACP ($450 - 650) Colt M1911A .45ACP ($650) (Forget .22, .25 or .32 cal handguns)

Now, the REALLY important part. Get the appropriate training and practice practice. Keep your weapons locked up and away from children. Never point a gun at another human being unless you can pull the trigger.

-- R. D..Herring (drherr@erols.com), November 18, 1998.

You are not going to get a better answer to your question than R.D. Herring just posted. Take heed.

-- Robert Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), November 18, 1998.

R.D. Herring is right on 99%. The 1% I disagree with is keeping your firearms locked up only if: (1) There are children in the house, lock them up. (2) No children in the house, every firemarm should be loaded, every adult member in the house knows where every loaded firearm is, and every adult trained to use them.

Our first choice home defense weapon is the 12 gauge Mossberg 500. One cock and they will run, or they will die. Our second choice is the SKS 7.62mm and it doesn't matter whether it's Chinese or Russian made. Some come with a bayonet (illegal here), some come with a 30 round clip (illegal here). Stock up on the ammo. For hidden, slip in the pocket, an American Firearms Black Widow 22 mag. It's small, easy to conceal and may scare the sh*t out of someone who comes wondering around. Used only for close range. A 22 S&W will do some hurts as well as a S&W 357. We have a tendency to shy away from the automatics, only because of jamming and the moving parts in them. Police and Sheriff in our area carry the Glocks.

N. Smith: There's several gun magazines out there that you can read up on. But the first thing you want to ask yourself before buying a gun, shotgun or rifle, what are you going to do with it. What is your main concern for the type of scenario you fit into (like where you live, who will be using the weapon, will it be easy for people in your group to use and what will your end motive be? An unloaded gun that is locked up is of no value to anyone. Just remember that.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 18, 1998.

For many years, I've had a Remington 870, with the folding stock and magazine extension. I agree that large caliber is important for handguns (I think .38 is too puny), so I have favored the .44 special load, but in a S&W magnum revolver -- the control is great!

One additional note on the handgun calibers: A lot of people think that you can make up for the puny calibers by using hollow points or other fancy bullets that are supposed to expand or whatever on impact. Often, however, they either don't, or expand when they should not (e.g., the classic case of expanding because they hit somebody's wallet). Good Stopping Power = Large Caliber. Period. Remember: when you shoot somebody you want them to stop; small calibers tend not to be as likely to do that as fast as the big boys will.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 18, 1998.

Weapons. Right. The Alamo all over again. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I say it for these reasons:

The bodies you leave in your yard will attract predators. How will you dispose of them? Even if you do, they will have been noticed. Burials will take a lot of quality time out in the open -- in plain sight -- and plenty of hard digging.

The bodies you leave on the razor wire will advertise that you've got something worth while stashed away. The more bodies, obviously the more worth while.

You can't be sure the next bunch coming down the road never heard of fire arrows. When they remember, you're toast.

You can't be sure the next bunch coming up the ravine won't be bigger than you can handle. Or be better armed.

Nobody can stay awake for 24 hours, 7 days a week.

Custer overestimated his capabilities, and underestimated his opponents. That didn't work out well.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 18, 1998.

Tom, so far, all the weapons that we have been talking about are for simple home defense, not extended fire-fights. Like "Toms Take" (not you, Tom, another Tom, its out there on some old thread, wish I could remember), I personally don't think that its going to be "Mad Max"; more like Desperate Downtrodden (but who knows).

Still, Tom does bring up another area ripe for discussion on this thread: Anyone have recomendations on assault rifles? And I mean ones that can take the sustained firing and not get too hot or lose accuracy. (Thanks, Tom!)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 18, 1998.

I personally won't use weapons.

I plan to use a big smile and kind words.

And maybe some good karma thrown in.

I believe that everyone will be kind, understanding and willing to share.

Greybear

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), November 18, 1998.

Jack,here's Tom's Take. The author is Tom Benjamin, lives in British Columbia I believe. It's a real cry from the heart.

Everything I said before notwithstanding, I can see both sides of this weapons issue. There are substantial risks either way. Everybody's got to make their own call. "Desperate Downtrodden" is closer to what I expect than "Mad Max" -- but -- like everyone else, as Ed Yourdon says, "I don't know." And there's no way to find out but wait.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 18, 1998.

Jack, As opposed to a few others on this thread that are delusional as to the condition of the human spirit under diress (kind words may turn away wrath, but starving desperate hordes will rend you apart), you pose an excellent question regarding assault rifles. There are 2 reasons to obtain an assault-type rifle if that is your choice. 1) the assault-type rifles will be the first to be banned and/or confiscated under emergency actions, as the road to banning them anyway regardless of Y2K is almost complete. (Only a few types remain legal to purchase and that number will dwindle as of Jan. 1 1999). And 2) They are excellent multi-purpose tools for hunting and pest control as well as defensive firepower.

In a sustained firefight there are a couple of good choices: the Ruger Mini-14 is an excellent all-around available rifle that you can get at Walmart or Bass Pro Shops. It is a rugged rifle, basic and practical. It comes with a 5 round magazine and fires a .223 round which is the round of choice for NATO forces, and you can purchase high-capacity (10, 20, 30 or 40 round) magazines through catalogs or at gun shops or shows. Sister to that rifle is the Ruger Mini-30, which fires a 7.62 X.39 round which is also a military round. It is a heavier bullet but has less velocity than a .223. The other features of the Mini-30 are the same as the Mini-14. Both rifles will fire semi-auto rounds almost as fast as you can squeeze the trigger and both are descendants of classic military combat rifles. With these you can hunt game or varminter if you wish (small furbearers such as racoons, oppossums, coyotes and such).

The only drawback to both of those rifles is that after 5-10 rounds, the barrel heats sufficiently to cause accuracy at over 100 yards to diminish slightly. Instead of grouping shots at dime-size, it will spread out to group in quarter to half-dollar size.

A more accurate assault rifle under sustained fire is an AR-15 or M-15/M-16 type rifle. It's what our military and tactical SWAT units use (only theirs has full-auto capacity). They fire a .223 round and also have high-capacity clips available. They are accurate at dime- size groupings at 100 yards consistently. They also fire as fast as you pull trigger. However, they are HIGH maintenance. Have spare parts (firing-pins etc) available, and good cleaning kits. You can obtain these legally in most states at licensed gun shops.

Possesing assault rifles has a tendancy to create interest in full- auto rifles or machine guns. Stick with the semi-autos. Machine gun barrels wear-out after about 10,000 rounds (if that sounds like alot, I assure you it isn't, considering you go through a 30 round clip in about 4 seconds) whereareas a semi-auto barrel can last over 30,000 rounds or more if properly cared for. Plus accuracy is better with a semi-auto.

Now I know I shall suffer the slings and arrows of the gun-haters crowd out there,and frankly I don't care. My M-16 against their slingshots is good odds to me, and those that haven't prepared for Y2K may have nothing but slingshots to use for hunting or defending themselves against hungry mobs that don't give a S**t what their ideology or karma rating is.

-- Invar (gundark@aol.com), November 19, 1998.

Buy a 12 ga. this weekend. It will do everything you will need it to do. (hunt, scare, kill) With slugs you can hunt deer, elk, pigs, etc.. With small shot you can hunt birds, rabbits, etc... With 00 buck you can take out several intruders in short order.

If you have the gun, but decided you don't need it (Smiley, happy people everywhere) Sell it, there will be a market for it.

If you don't have a gun, and you want one after 1/1/00. With some luck and lots of gold, maybe?

As for the dead bodies lying around the yard, get a pig. They eat bodies, bones and all. Your dog will enjoy them, too. Or if you have a chipper and some gas ... (Fargo Solution)

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), November 19, 1998.

Since the subject of weapons was brought up, and I couldn't find the answer to the following question in any old threads, isn't there some law/regulation etc. that is supposed to take effect Nov. 1 that either creates more paperwork when buying or makes it more difficult to purchase a firearm?

-- Bill S. (Bill_S3@juno.com), November 19, 1998.

It's almost too late to become a responsible first time gun owner 'for Y2K'. There's a LOT to learn and very little time to do in. And you may want to consider that the time you spend doing this might better be spent gathering food, potable water, firewood, etc.. I would much rather have no bullets than no food or no heat - but hey, that's just my own priorities.

If you are a first time owner, I would suggest contacting your local Izaak Walton League and/or NRA. You can get very good basic firearms safety instruction and marksmanship training either for free or at a very low price. These folks voluteer a tremendous amount of time and stress attitude and responsibility. You'll learn how to handle, clean, load (and unload), you'll the difference between a misfire, a squib and a hangfire, you'll what not to do and why, and other such essentials.

You should also consider taking your local concealed weapons course even if you don't plan to apply for a permit. Talk to the instructor for the course and see if they'll let you 'auidit' the class. You will learn the laws specific to your state - and they vary tremedously.

For example, in Iowa, if someone breaks into your house while you are there and you shoot them, you will go to jail -- for a long time. And the person you shoot (or that person's survivors) will very likely sue your butt (and win!). You may NOT use deadly force to defend property in this state. You may only use deadly force in this state to defend your own life or the lives of others immediately around you. And 3 very specific conditions must ALL clearly be met or you WILL go to jail: The person must show through word or deed that they intend to kill or severely injure you or others (it's not enough if they are simply carrying a gun). They must have some means with which to do it (a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, etc -- simple size or numbers alone don't cut it. A fist fight does not constitute justification to use deadly force). Finally, they must be capable of carrying through (i.e. if you could have run, called for the authorities or ducked behind a suitable barracade, you are not allowed to use deadly force). In short, there are extraordinarily few circumstances in this state in which deadly force can be justifiably used by Joe Citizen. Texas is a bit different on these issues, I've heard.

You also need to know what your state defines as an 'offensive' weapons. They are illegal for most people to possess. In Iowa, for example, any rifle or shotgun with an OVERALL length of less than 26 inches is considered an offensive weapon. Ballistic knives, etc.

Is a loaded magazine in proximity to a gun considered the same as a loaded gun for the purposes of transport in your state? It is in mine. Even if the gun and the magazine are separated by a fair distance. (A loaded magazine in the console and a handgun in the trunk will get you jail time and a free firearm-ectomy here.)

And then there's the stupid hunter tricks...

Last year here, a gentleman (and I use the term loosely) shot his son (accidently?, not!) while using the butt of his semi-auto to beat a wounded raccoon to death. ("But I had the darn safety on. How was I to know the silly thing thing was gonna go off?")

And the stupid self defense tricks...

Before I was born, a relative of mine was killed when a loaded shotgun leaning against a wall in his house fell over (accidently? not!) and discharged.

My point is simply this: If you are not willing to get certified professional training in the use of firearms, if you are not willing to practice marksmanship skills, if you are not willing to fully understand the relevant laws in your state, and if you are not willing to be a responsible firearms owner, don't bother buying the gun. You'll end up doing yourself and your family much more harm than good. Hunger, cold, fear and ignorance are your real enemies and firearms are of limited value. Remember, there's no such thing as an 'undo' function for the trigger of a firearm - any firearm.

Seek out knowledgeable, RESPONSIBLE, firearms owners and LISTEN to them. Please avoid my Uncle "Yee-haw-shoot-em-up" Bubba. He may be the best-armed turkey in the 48 contiguous states but he will quickly lead you astray. That is, if his strays don't get you first. ("How was I s'pose ta know the dang fool was gonna walk right in fronta my muzzle just whens the bullet decided ta go off?")

If you do buy, commit to the whole enchilada, not just the meat.

Guns are not a solution to Y2K. Any moron can buy a gun and that's the trouble. Too many morons have...

It's learning to use one safely, responsibly and accurately that's a real class act.

And Greybear has a very good point, you should consider using a big smile and kind words as your first line of defense.

Best, safe, & responsible wishes,

-Arnie

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), November 19, 1998.

Arnie and RD, thankyou very much, you both, in agregate have covered all of the points I usually make .............except one..........

.

.

You do NOT purchase a gun for defense or to defend myself and family.

.

.

There is only one reason anyone buys a gun and this must be remembered by all and sundry.

One buys a gun TO KILL SOMEONE OR SOMETHING PERIOD

The self protection etc argument simply doesn't hold. Showing a gun without the intestinal fortitude to pull the trigger is tantamount to an invitation to having it used on you, after your family has been used in front of you.

Chuck

-- Chuck a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 19, 1998.

We have always had rifles and shotguns around for hunting. Don't need to purchase new ones now. We have a .22 and a 12 gauge. That should do us just fine for hunting purposes, and will be good for defense if necessary. We are, of course, stocking up on shells.

-- Bobbi (volfnat@northweb.com), November 19, 1998.

If you live in Iowa move or give them SPAM laced with cyanide. Chuck, I thought you had more common sense than what you posted above. For those who want to smile and give kisses and hugs, you may as well kiss your butt good bye. As for the dead bodies laying around, they will be food for vultures. If you can't stand the scene of watching a vulture eat a dead carcass, then dig a hole and bury them. I hope there are millions of kissy huggy people out there because that's less people I have to worry about shooting.

-- steadyeddy (bullseye@target.com), November 19, 1998.

Guns vs. Hungry people. One of my older brothers served in the USN during WWII. His destroyer was one of the first to dock in the port of Naples Italy. The population was mad with hunger and food riots were a common occurance at the docks. He told me that bursts of .30 cal machine gun fire did keep them at bay, but that they did not leave. The local authority had fled. Only fear of immediate death kept those people from over running the ships. When the machine guns ceased, the crowd got closer. This lasted for days until ships with food arrived. He does not know how many Italians died as a result of the machine gun fire, but it would seem many more died of hunger. It is a scene from a nightmare that I would not like to repeat in miniature at my front porch. I am sufficiently armed to, "repel boarders" as it were, but for how long? Hunger and thirst are great motivators. Who would think that unarmed people would even think of going up against a war ship bristling with fire power? Maybe a smile and a shrug should be your first defense. There is an awful lot to think about. In my military and law enforcement career, I have learned that the best plan is the one that has the least plans in it. You folks who have been there know what I am talking about. Thats why the movie, "Saving Private Ryan" was so authentic. None of the plans they made really worked out they way they expected.

Keeping a low profile in South Carolina: Bill

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), November 19, 1998.

Arnie said, "Texas is a bit different on these issues, I've heard."

You heard right. In Texas you can kill someone in your front yard who's trying to steal your car. You don't even have to wait for them to break into your house. You DO need a permit now to carry a concealed weapon, though. So, I guess we've become a little more civilized. :-)

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), November 19, 1998.

I always get a kick out of these discussions...

two points:

1. re: Chuck the night driver's 'not for self-defense'comment - while I understand your point concerning the neccessity of being willing and able to use lethal force, and in fact I agree that such a mindset is essential to survival in those situations, that does NOT make such a mindset antithetical to one of self-defense. The point here is that statistically (FBI, 1995, if I recall correctly) about 89 percent of all armed confrontations involving civilian defensive use of firearms end without any shots being fired...in other words the selfdefense thing is what occurs, not the 'waste 'em where they stand' thing. Also, barring TEOTWAWKI, in many states even telling the grand jury (and here in VA if you shoot someone in self defense you are sent to a grand jury anyway) that you meant to kill the person makes it manslaughter - what you tell them is that you shot in selfdefense and that you were just trying to make the aggressor stop his/her/their attack...

2. re Tom Carey's "the bodies you leave on the razor wire" hyperbole: yeesh! Tom! you need to study personal and small unit hygene - one doesn't leave bodies on the wire, one collects them, strips them for intelligence materials and usable supplies, and then disposes of them appropriately. You might want to read about siting for latrines, as well, (hint, you don't do that on the wire either...well at least not more than once...)

Arlin Adams

In other words being ready and able to use lethal force when neccessary is an inherent part of the selfdefense mindset.

2.

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), November 19, 1998.

Ive said this before, and gotten flamed, sounds like its time to say it again, edited somewhat.

I plan to be in a forest, only after having exhausted ALL efforts at creating community, preparing and contingency planning in Silicon Valley, CA. I will walk silently wearing Y2K compliant moccasins, packing very few essential possessions, and camping as I go. (Girl Scouts, the old-style Sierra Club high-camp and kayaking trips, and metaphysical following the syncronicities adventures taught me how). I plan to perfect the art of climbing the tallest tree (excelled at it as a kid), shooting my deadly force self-made arrow at a squirrel that Id rather feed than eat, and bless the little guy for nourishing me and mine. I choose to live off the bounty and natural abundance of the land, gunless, as a worst case scenario, or TEOTWAWKI. Before that possible ending, I will be comforted in my soul that I personally tired everything I knew, to shift that probable reality. Why? Because the ending is made up of unlimited possibilities. Earth abides. Shift happens. Suffering results in clinging to that which changes.

For those who choose instead to stockpile and defend their home bunkers, history has proved it is often an unwise strategy. Aside from the mess of bodies piling in the yard and the danger of disease, the easiest way to attack a bunker is by fire. You and the family either leave or burn. Not a comfortable choice. Working together -- preparing to share --is more long-lasting. It offers the better long- term chance for everyones, or at least, a good portion of the populations survival.

For the survivalist dudes with assault rifles (you know who you are), you may stomp through the forest floor below clanking your rifles and handguns in readiness. You wont even know Im there, in that tall tree watching you. If by chance, one of you guys with your hard-won egos and closed hearts happens to look up my tree and shoots me down, so be it. Id rather go through the light tunnel and go Home rather than live on a planet steeped in FEAR.

Better luck next life.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 19, 1998.

"Better luck next life" . . . Diane, there are no "do-overs" in real life. The Bible says, we are appointed to die once, then face God's judgement. Since we have only one life to live, we'd better live it right. Sorry to rain on the reincarnation party.

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), November 19, 1998.

eddy:

I was restating the belief that the decision has to be made before the purchase. The mental preparation must be made before the event. Anyone who hasn't done the mental prep, will hesitate in the event that the trigger NEEDS to be pulled. Now, when hunting, buck fever simply saves the deer and means the sufferer stays a bit hungrier. In a severe social situation, this hesitation gets the unprepared gun owner dead. And, perhaps, his/her family.

I understand thet the typical defensive actions are "Stand-offs" and the shoot-no-shoot decision is an individual situational one but if the gun owner is NOT ready to shoot, and it is simply a no-shoot brandish, the sight of my gun will scare them off attitude in the situation, the gun owner WILL be the loser, of EVERYTHING!.

CR

PS Stand-offs are NO FUN! The sweat collection in the shoes can be POURED out! c

-- Chuck a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 19, 1998.

uh, David, the, uh, lady from Arizona who talks about happily swinging through the trees happens to live in the desert...just to give you a frame of reference for dealing with her comments.

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), November 19, 1998.

Uh, Arlin, if you're talking about Diane, she lives in Northern California. That "ain't" no desert.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), November 19, 1998.

Thanks Arlin . . . in other words, make some allowance for sun stroke, heat exhaustion, that sorta thing???

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), November 19, 1998.

Great comments on a great thread, especially re the info on assault rifles! And lets remember that GUNS SAVE LIVES, GUNS PREVENT VIOLENCE by just being there when we need them, with the will to use them. Yes, if you must pull the trigger, shoot to kill, but many times the mere presence of being armed and deadly is enough to prevent problems.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 19, 1998.

Just finished reading "Tom's Take". He expressed my fears and what I imagine of the worse case scenario and survival very eloquently. I'm just hoping it doesn't happen.

By his spelling, I assume he's Canadian. This explains his view about guns. I'm also Canadian, but I have lived in both the US and Canada for the same amount of time. It's a dead end for a Canadian to argue against "Road Warriors" and guns with an American, because both live in very different cultures with very different circumstances. It's as much a dead end as the old Macs vs PC's flame wars. Both are the "right" computer depending on your needs, situations and preferences. I'm phylosophicaly against guns, but probably would use one if I knew how to save my skin. I'd use anything to save my skin, including my nails. But I don't want to be in a situation where I'd need a gun, so it's why I'm going back to Canada with like minded people. Much less Road Warrior mentality there, and much less guns. But Tom, I have a choice, most Americans don't.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), November 19, 1998.

Diane: If people don't stock pile food and supplies then there won't be anything to share. Since you live in little L.A., you won't make it to the forest. There's nothing to burn around my bunker, and I have the best shot from my vantage point. I'd rather go down in my home than swing from a tree anyday, if that be the case. We live in a society with very little morals. Our President is at the head of it. Adultery, gang violence, murders, rapes, kidnappings, drive-by shootings, you get the picture. We are already at the edge ready to go over. Frankly, I have no hope for our country to become a place where you don't have to fear for your life every time you step out of your house. So, as a result of what we have become, it forces me to do whatever I can to protect myself and family from these predators. Everyone lives in fear these days, the suicide rate among teenagers and young adults is at an all time high. We are going the way of Rome, I believe we will fall. In the mean time, I'll just live each day as it's dealt to me, lock and load, and so be it.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 19, 1998.

I can't resist adding my two cents worth and in a round-about way.

Will a gun be necessary and will I use it?

To help me to answer the two questions, I recall my reactions to the "What's the number" test. Perhaps you have not heard it so ... Put 24 slips of paper in a brown paper bag. The slips of paper are numbered 1 to 24. Then stop eating For 24 hours, but continue your normal activities. After 24 hours, reach into the bag and blindly take one slip of paper. What ever number is on the paper slip indicates the number of hours into the future that you can eat start eating again.

I can remember some of my thoughts (When do I eat again, irritable) and reactions (shakes, headaches). I was in top physical shape and had been eating nutritional Army food, not modern-day junk food. 48 hrs. was the maximum without food, I knew that but my values changed from that experience. Will there be hungry people in our future? If so then I will need a gun.

I have seen young people in the prime of their life lying as if asleep but they were not sleeping and no amount of wishing would wake them up. VietNam 67-68. Killed by strangers with no questions asked. Have you ever had to shoot an animal or human? And thought afterwards of the expression on their face. Too late, can't undo it. Regrets. Just don't want any one I care about or myself to end like that so yes, I will use the gun and quickly because there is no second place in this kind of competition. I sincerely hope Y2K is a bump in the road but....

-- George (regrets@cyber.net), November 19, 1998.

Uh, David, "Sorry to rain on the reincarnation party," it is documented fact that those references were "edited" out much later. Pointless to waste time debating the matter. Y2K is much more immediate. You follow your understanding, I'll follow mine.

Bardou, I am not remotely against preparing. It's common sense and prudent. I'm not even against your right to have a gun. It's just not my individual choice. Even if there is nothing around you to burn, your home CAN burn. That is my point. Some intentional or careless person can cause you to have to leave. Just have a "mobile" back-up strategy. Prudent?

I simply see that the wiser strategy would be to create community, instead of trying to stand alone.

Diane

(I am in Northern California now -- lots of trees and tons more water than Southern CA. Small blessing. Also there are some rather large, extremely motivated computer and high-technology companies in Silicon Valley that will push, hard, to see the lights stay on in this area, and their doors stay open. Who knows what will happen? Our choices will determine the impact of Y2K).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 19, 1998.

Diane..I don't live that far from you. What trees? Santa Cruz? Monterey? Big Sur? Yosemite? You certainly won't be heading West. If your on foot in the dead of winter in San Jose, you aren't going anywhere fast. Even the seasoned homeless in San Francisco have a hard time. I don't think you fit the picture. As for water? Your groundwater is polluted from all the Silicon Valley industries (HP is one source). (I worked on cleanup projects, and many groundwater wells are still polluted). As for the lights staying on? We shall see. PG&E isn't guaranteeing that the lights are going to remain on. As a matter of fact, the are saying "we need time, give us more time." And, it is not our choices that determine the impact on Y2K. Hell, do you think that I choose for this to happen? Please, don't lay that monumental guilt trip on us! The impact of Y2K will determine for me how I choose to live out the rest of my life. With what skills, supplies, determination, imagination, and luck that I possess, I plan to do very well. And my house burning down is the least of my worries.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 20, 1998.

A news story that was on TV during the first days after Hurricane Mitch devestated Honduras: A US Army helicopter loaded with food and emergency supplies TOOK OFF before landing, as the soldiers were AFRAID THEY WOULD BE KILLED BY THE MOB OF HUNGRY, PANICY PEOPLE SWARMING THE LANDING HELICOPTER.

Does anyone really think a few weapons or smiles and friendly words will protect them? I think our best protection will be to plan to lay low and stay out of sight.

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), November 20, 1998.

Bardou,

Contingency planning means that when you need to go elsewhere to a safe haven, you go. And you don't wait until the last minute either. One car per driver. My choice? North, possibly along the upper CA coast. Good ocean & river fishing, good hidden farm valleys and lots of trees and fresh water.

Back-up strategy? On foot? Lots of trees in Santa Cruz foothills and springs. Head down below Monterey along coast. Behind Big Sur is a good area, Carmel valley, etc. The "dead of winter" in San Jose means rain, not snow, often sunshine.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 20, 1998.

And Bardou, in response to "And, it is not our choices that determine the impact on Y2K. Hell, do you think that I choose for this to happen? Please, don't lay that monumental guilt trip on us! The impact of Y2K will determine for me how I choose to live out the rest of my life."

None of us chooses Y2K. It just "is," and can't be fixed, and is completely unknown. I am not trying to lay any "guilt" trip on anyone. Your interpretation, not mine. If everyone in this country "chooses" to stand alone, whatever that means to them, then Y2K determined how we live, not us. All I ask is that we all consider "choosing" to come together, or we are doomed. That's the choice that needs to be made here. United/Divided.

Diane *Create Community, Prepare To Share, Be Y2K Aware*

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 20, 1998.

Diane: If your into communal living, there's several communes in the Nevada City area, N. San Juan, and the Rennasaince Winery near Brownsville. The winery and commune is operated by highly educated people. Just bring skills and a happy face with you.

I do agree with you that the northern coast of California is beautiful. Maybe you could find refuge on a sheep ranch. Sheer and care for the sheep in exchange for room and board. The opportunities are endless.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 20, 1998.

I agree with you Bardou...might as well live next door to someone who owns a gun as to have yours unloaded or locked up. Mine stays loaded and handy.

"Sharp Shooter" Bridget

-- Bridget (sworks@internetpro.net), November 21, 1998.

Bardou,

"Communal living" off in the hills (i.e. running for them) is a "last stand" tactic, ONLY if it looks like TEOTWAWKI is our only choice (because we weren't all smart enough to make better ones).

"Creating community" is a better strategy/vision for "the place where you live and work" so that we can all combine resources and be creative about our collective problems and unusual Y2K solutions.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 21, 1998.

Why are so many thinking of killing each other when things get tough? During the time when I had to eat animal guts from a farmer's manure pile to survive, nobody killed anybody. It was so peaceful that there was not even one cop in town!

-- trying to forget (seenit@ww2.com), November 21, 1998.

I just figured it out. Too much Hollywood exposure via tele.

-- trying to forget (seenit@ww2.com), November 21, 1998.

Diane: This strategy/vision living are communites where you work and play, that's why these communes are so successful. The people who operate and live within these communes are brillant, educated, and artistic people. You would not have to worry about storing food, your personal safety from the outside world would be taken care of. You would only work within the community and contribute your skills and time in exchange for the privilege of you living there. Like the Heaven's Gate commune, if you are a skilled computer programmer, there is plenty of contract rememdiation work. You would certainly be welcomed with open arms and maybe even a high place within the commune. Have you been to a commune and checked it out? For many it won't be a last stand, it will be a necessity. As for me, I wouldn't fit in, I'm too much of a free thinker and a take care of myself person. While they may not have lethal weapons like guns around, the just might have some poisonous soft drinks and some spare change laying around...to take to the after world of course.

Bridget: I hope everyone who lives around me is armed and loaded. No crime in that.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 22, 1998.

Bardou, "I'm too much of a free thinker." Not enough apparently. You are equating communes with cults. Not very thoughtful of you.

Sorry never lived in one, a commune, never joined one, a cult. Too much into "thinking free." Always lived in cute artistic towns that have a real sense of community and work to keep it that way.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 22, 1998.

Arnie's post resonated. I spent 6 years armed in reponse to a very specific threat,(now passed), and did not like it. I was afraid when i had a gun and afraid when I didn't. Only drew once on a loser busily beating his wifes head against the pavement at a convenience store. Lucky he stopped when I challenged him: 10 minutes later, while the paramedics stabilized her for transport, wifey had me arrested for reckless endangerment. (Thrown out by the judge, but a major hassle.) That was an education, and 3 cheers for cops. I also worked part-time at a range and was constantly amazed how many people there were who felt walking around heavily armed qualified as a hobby. Why couldn't they take up golf or aerobic dancing or something less lethal?

Anyway- You MUST have already decided to kill people if neccessary. IMHO, if it doesn't make you feel ugly, you either haven't understood the question or enjoy it too much to be healthy. You MUST practice, particularly with hand guns. The law is strange. There are precious few situations where you can "legally" shoot someone. The repercussions are intense. Get and read Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme" for an excellent, practical overview.

There is a saying in psychology : Insane behavior in a sane environment is insanity. Sane behaviour in an insane environment is insanity. Insane behavior in an insane environment is sanity. Judge yourself and your environment carefully.

And now, for those of you who enjoy irony...

a few days ago, I decided to buy a Mossberg 590 12ga before the new law went into effect. With my permit, I could buy it and walk. Gave the clerk the permit. It expires in '02. Guess what? His POS sytem couldn't accept dates beyond 99. (sigh) If the Gods Smile Upon Us, I can throw the damn thing in a river in the summer of 2001. Hopefully sooner.

I am a Systems Analyst, and I tell ya: it ain't pretty. I doubt it will be TEOTWAKI, but The Depression, The World Wars, Somalia and Bhopal weren't TEOTWAKI either.

One last thought: for every hour you spend practice shooting, spend at least the same time community building. Good neighbors are alot more likely to save your ass than good groupings.

And The band Played On.

-- CS lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), November 24, 1998.

You do not have to have a gun and kill someone who is hungry during Y2K. All you need is a Laser Pointer and flash it across their eyes and they start running. If they close their eyes and try to get close to you, simply have a Stun Gun ready to Zapp them! A very simple and low cost solution to a big problem! A Laser Pointer has a range of 450 feet. That's all you need. Good luck to all during Y2K!

-- Eddie Pons (ponski@soft-link.com), November 24, 1998.

Is it my imagination, or is this the first thread that we have ever had where firearms play a very active role in the discussion, yet everyone actually manages to stay rational, and even consider what other people are posting. Gosh, what next ... hope???

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 24, 1998.

jack

the results of this thread augur well However, the results of a couple of newer threads augur for more of the same. OH WELL.....

Chuck

-- Chuck etc (rienzoo@en.com), November 25, 1998.

Please indulge me as I add an observation to yesterday's posting.

Something I noticed when I was always carrying a weapon, is a tendency in myself and others to believe that carrying a gun somehow gives you control over dangerous situations. It's easy to see how american popular culture encourages this illusion.

I learned, (eventually), that this is false. Being armed does NOT give you control over the outcome of a dangerous situation. It does however make you RESPONSIBLE for the outcome.

We should all check out the new Utne reader site on Y2K. It's a much healthier perspective. (http://www.utne.com/y2k/index.html)

Reading it helped me clarify my beliefs. I decided that my weapons are not for the defense of my family, home or supplies. They are for the defense of my neighbors, and only if the civil authorities are unable to help. I hope my neighbors feel the same way. I'm thinking of suggesting to my neighbors that we all purchase at least one Family Radio Service radio, to be left on a common channel so that we can all shout for immediate help if needed.

Y2K is certainly an issue we all would like to have some sense of control over, so I think the interest in weapons by people who would normally never otherwise consider them is to be expected. And, perhaps, feared.

Thank you all for your observations. They have been a great help to me.

-- CS Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), November 25, 1998.

I've thought a lot about guns, weapons and violence. I've practiced traditional Asian martial arts for 25 years, and I also own a bunch of guns - rifles, shotguns, semiauto handguns. I find that the traditional martial arts lead to spiritual awareness and sensitivity in a way that guns do not. Nevertheless, guns have an educational value also - call it target shooting, tactical practice, or whatever. As guns are the small arms of our time, I believe every citizen should learn how to use them responsibly. As in the time of the samurai, an armed society is a polite society. I would give anything if guns could be "un-invented". But since they cannot, we have to accept their use and abuse as a reflection of our braoder society. America's disorder and violence result from our social tensions, not our heavily armed status. Every household in Switzerland is issued a high-powered rifle and ammo, for civil defense. We can't imagine that working here, why ? Because our society is too fractured, TV-drugged, competitive, and alienated to allow for it. The Swiss are far from perfect (Holocaust financial issues), but they present an interesting contrast.

Anybody who believes firmly in gun control has to accept that they are pushing the violence out of their sight, but are ultimately relying on the guns of others to protect them. Everybody should read Jay Simkin's "Lethal Laws: Gun Control as the Precursor to Genocide", and consider how brave and effective the Warsaw Ghetto resistors were once they captured a few arms, and what might have happened had they been armed from the outset. Those who say it couldn't happen here, I guess you aren't Japanese ancestry, over age 50 from the West Coast.

However, I do expect private ownership of guns to be completely banned within a few years. Ironically, y2k is the only thing that could DELAY this, because even if the y2k hammer doesn't "come down hard", a significant new gun ownership constituency is being created by the y2k fears. But ultimately government has to control the population, and gun confiscation is job #1 in that project. This isn't Switzerland! So, I expect to surrender the guns within a few years, but meanwhile I enjoy hobby-level target and tactical practice. I have never hunted, couldn't bear to kill any innocent animal. They are for the most part superior to humans. I don't eat meat either.

-RC

"The second amendment is no more about duck hunting than the first is about Scrabble." - John Ross

-- Run W. Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), November 25, 1998.

Gosh, Mr. Cat, I like a lot of what you have to say, but the parts that I don't like, I really don't like!

Firstly, if indeed guns could be somehow "un-invented", what we would be left with is a society where only the most brutal and savage rule. Only the firearm, especially the handgun, provides the "equality" needed without having to have the brute strength needed in a gunless society. (Gee, sounds kind of like the concept of the martial arts, huh?)

Secondly, I would not be so cavalier in thinking that guns will be outlawed in the U.S. anytime soon (with or without Y2K). I think that you vastly underestimate the power of the people. (The bumper sticker, "I will give up my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers", somehow comes to mind....)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 25, 1998.

Well, Mr. Sprat, you have a point. TouchE. I'm sure we can agree that between the 2 of them, Patrick and Adolf have illuminated the core issue well:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.

-- Patrick Henry, During Virginia's ratification convention, 1788

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall.

-- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.

-- R. Way Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), November 25, 1998.

* Secondly, I would not be so cavalier in thinking that guns will be outlawed in the U.S. anytime soon (with or without Y2K). I think that you vastly underestimate the power of the people. *

This was true at one time. Jack, I'm sorry but I must disagree because it's not the case anymore for the metroplotitan areas. They are oozing with washed and sanitized brains.

What power of the people? They are now more exploited than under the feudal lords of yore. And they don't even know it.

Do live in a Western state or rural area?

-- fly . (.@...), November 25, 1998.

I don't know about Jack, but I live in the far West. Where I shoot, I'm seeing a significant upsurge of newbies. However, how many gun owners, when the edict for confiscation comes down, are going to defend their guns to the death ? Hardly any. It'll start as a buyback thing (Australian style), and go from there. Read Boston T. Party on the subject of people defending their firearms rights with their lives - it isn't going to happen. That is why the astonishing book "Unintended Consequences" (John Ross) is pure fantasy. If gun owners are so fanatic about their weapons, why is it most (even experienced) people at my range can barely hit the side of a barn at 20' with their handguns ? They don't even take the time to learn the basics. True Americans, we're more in love with the equipment than the skill.

I see only 2 possible futures for the human race, depending on how y2k comes down:

(a) barbarity a la Lucifer's Hammer/Triple Ought/Postman or some such.

(b) complete state/corporate enslavement, starting with Ritalin on up to gun confiscation, ultimately leading to a "1984" (or the more gentle and drugged-up "Brave New World" scenario - seems like Ritalin and Prozac are preparing us for that one).

Things have to play themselves out, and within 50 years one or the other of (a) or (b) will be in place. I think we've pushed things so far that no compromise will be possible.

-RC

-- Run Way C. (runway_cat@hotmail.com), November 25, 1998.

A few comments...

Where I live, you can shoot someone in defense of your life, when retreat is impractical, and you haven't precipitated the situation...Or, when the person is in the act of breaking into your home. Once they're in the original rule applies. Sorta quirky rule, I learned it at the concealed weapons training course. No gun yet though.

A gun has to be a last-ditch contingency. There's no real debate between smiles and shooting...you smile, and if that doesn't work, things get to the point where you'll die if you don't have a gun, that's what the gun is for. Only then.

And for Diane, kudos and greetings from a fellow tree-swinger, taking some very serious wilderness courses and learning to keep a low profile like you people wouldn't believe...

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), December 17, 1998.

Guns are tools. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Baseball bats don't kill people, people kill people. Knives don't kill people, people kill people. When you eliminate the human predators the need for self-protection against HUMANS will not be necessary. Firearms ownership is up to the indiviual, I prefure to have the means to defend myself in necessary because the law inforcement DOSEN'T HAVE TO RISK THEIR LIFE FOR MY SAFETY. REMEMBER THE LA RIOTS?

-- (AS@soutwind.net), December 21, 1998.

You know, before I read this thread I was totally opposed to gun ownership. I thought the Australian method was the best: only in the hands of cops and those farmers who can prove they desperately need them for pest control. No private citizen can have a firearm unless they can prove a damn good reason; self defence does not count.

Now, I think that the Swiss have the right idea. The Israelis do the same thing, by the way- every adult is required to do 3 years military training and, subsequently, to have a Uzi and 300 rounds of ammunition in the house. I read somewhere that under certain circumstances (threat of war), the law requires these weapons to be carried on the person wherever you go.

Needless to say, if the Swiss or Israeli government ever tried to go fascist, they would have a LOT of trouble on their hands.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

--Leo

-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 21, 1998.

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

-- Lisa (close@nocigar.bud), December 21, 1998.