> Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] > That Item Whose Name May Not Be Spoken on Television: a gun. > > If there's disruption, looting, a breakdown in what now passes for > civil order, a gun is just about the most important thing to have. > Probably not necessary to use it, for 99.5% of everyone, but then most > of the emergency things like plastic sheets and medical supplies > probably won't be needed, either. [...]
Your point is well taken, but: Three points: 1. About half of US households have guns already. It's safe to assume that they will defend themselves if TSHTF. 2. For the half which don't, a very large number of them consist of people with no firearms experience (especially since the draft ended 30 years ago), no knowledge of gun maintenance and safety, or training in how, when, and when not to use them. 3. The supply isn't there. Guns last a very long time, and rarely need to be replaced. As a result, the stockpile of available unsold guns is much smaller than the size of the unarmed populace. Even if they live in a state where it's legal to do so without getting a license from the state first, telling the sheeple to rush out and buy shotguns would probably lose more lives to accidents than it would save, if Walmart etal didn't run out of stock first. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the freedom to do so - far from it. But I don't think it's practical advice. Peter Trei