[nikto]

several sheep, get bags of grain, get it all preserved and underground, or you're going to starve. you can't defend above ground storage, and you can't be seen, either. When everyone else is a walking skeleton and you look normal, you'll be shot in the leg and tortured to find out where your food is stored. there simply aint enough wild game or edible plants to feed even 10% of the population, even if it was done intelligently and systematically. Since it won't be, less than 1% will make it by such means. 90% are going to die if the power goes off (and stays off) within a year. diseases, infighting, lack of water and food, shtf is going to get nearly everybody. the fact that you dont believe it doesn't change anything. it just reveals you to be a whim worshipper instead of rational.

 

[John in AR]

Again I ask:

Curious for some historical precedent for this. Societal-breakdown situations where rifles were paramount and handguns were irrelevant.

 

[Garand]

I still want to see his spider hole that holds a years worth of food? Has "wifey" dug it yet? I know you have a bad back

 

[John in AR]

Topic D

 

[justme]

ALL of them, John. wtf would choose a pistol over a rifle for such a thing? wtf favored a pistol for our wild west, if they could have a lever rifle? what you are talking about is some little pissant thing that doesn't require a gun at all, just requires enough sense to mountainbike out of the area, like Katrina, and enough sense to not have much money tied up in a shore area that's lower than the ocean level.

 

[justme]

basically, if insurance for your property is not well within your ability to pay for it, you shouldn't OWN that property. If insurance companies are scared of it, YOU should be scared of it.

 

[John in AR]

Again I ask:
Curious for some historical precedent for this. Societal-breakdown situations where rifles were paramount and handguns were irrelevant.

ALL of them, John.... ...wtf favored a pistol for our wild west, if they could have a lever rifle?... ...what you are talking about is some little pissant thing that doesn't require a gun at all, just requires enough sense to mountainbike out of the area...

The old west wasn't a societal-breakdown SHTF thing; it was everyday life.

As far as actual 'SHTF' situations, I include things like the Argentine collapse, the french resistance in WW2, and the warsaw ghetto; "little pissant things" like those. Riding a bicycle out of occupied Paris or Warsaw wasn't really an option, and in those situations a handgun would absolutely be more important than a rifle imo.

But it may just be a matter of semantics. You may genuinely see nationwide economic collapse, world war, or being imprisoned by enemy soldiers in a locked-down ghetto as "little pissant things"; I personally don't.

 

[justme]

only idiots prefer handguns when they COULD have a longarm. Many did only have a sidearm cause they could not afford a Win 73, but all WANTED one. when you openly carry, and have a horse to lug things around, why not, hmm? When your rifle CAN be concealable in your pack (ie, get a 6" shorter barrel, John) can be silenced, still be a handy length and weight, and have a 22 and subsonic option, wtf would you NOT want all the rifle's advantages?

 

[John in AR]

...When your rifle CAN be concealable in your pack (ie, get a 6" shorter barrel, John) can be silenced, still be a handy length and weight, and have a 22 and subsonic option, wtf would you NOT want all the rifle's advantages?

Oh... my... god...

My rifle can be concealed in a pack. My rifle can be - and often is - silenced. My rifle has a .22 adapter with subsonic ammo. My rifle has a night-vision-compatible electronic sight. My rifle has backup non-electronic sights. My rifle has a very good trigger. With my rifle, I can get sub-0.3 second splits at more than a hundred feet with full-power ammo. And my rifle has nothing to do with the very simple question I asked.

The very-simple question wasn't about "what I own" or "what I prefer". The very-simple question was whether you could enumerate "some historical precedent of societal-breakdown situations where rifles were paramount and handguns were irrelevant".

And other than to say "all of them", you haven't listed any.

A - A resistance fighter in occupied Paris (whose source for guns would be to steal one from the occupiers) would be better off with a rifle than a pistol? (Your answer can be yes, no, or that wasn't a real SHTF situation)

B - Someone forced into the warsaw ghetto and plotting an escape or uprising, would be better off with a rifle than a pistol? (Your answer can be yes, no or that wasn't a real SHTF situation)

 

[John in AR]

Still waiting for a reply to the simple, civil question.