he has to be trolling. who the **** even carries around an m60 besides old weapons collectors? the military doesnt even use that outdated posI just laid out the example for you, i guess you didn't understand it clearly enough. Who is going to be hit first, the soft target with food or the hard target with food? Who has the better odds of survival if they were to try to rob you - the victim who has a weapon or the victim who doesn't?firearms are deterrents. i guess thats what you don't understand


believe it or not it actually takes some level of training to be proficient enough to kill someone with a weapon at range (whether thats 5 meters to 50m)

Post apocalyptic scenario. anyone alive will have a weapon.

Virtually all gun crime in the United States is committed with handguns, as are virtually all gun homicides. You should bone up on firearms distribution/use in the US. Most criminals can't even get hold of a decent pistol, let alone a $2000 AR15.

yes there are nicer/newer/updated options, but the M60 is still in production and still used by the Army and Seals as well as several foreign militaries.

This thread makes the point of having a weapon to defend yourself when things go sour. People tend to take the moral high ground.

Yet no one has mentioned the perspective of having weapons readily available to take things from others to survive.

From a pragmatic point of view, there is no reward for starving to death. Like in Walking Dead or in any other survival series, it takes a while for people rewire their brain to be capable of harming others to survive.

Post-apocalyptic scenario:

1. The areas getting nuked are going to be large urban centers, populated overwhelmingly by the poor
2. The areas not getting nuked are going to be rural and suburban areas.

Brush up on your demographics.

thats not always true. do you have any weapons/firearms experience under your belt? It's not like a video game. it actually takes discipline and skill to make a well-placed, accurate shot under pressure/adrenaline.

take it from someone who's job is killing people, the average civilian/thug doesn't know **** about weapons. The middle class that do choose to own weapons has at a minimum a basic understanding of how to clear malfunctions, the 5 fundamentals of marksmanship, proper weapons maintenance, all things that are necessary in this imaginary post apocalyptic world. personally i think this discussion is bullchit because its all hypothetical.US troops don't carry the m60 into combat. I don't know what part of the military might still be using it. otherwise in arms room collecting dust

You won't see an M60 in use by US military ground troops. A 240? Sure, but not a 60. We probably have some in arsenal somewhere but no one's dragging that thing around. They might have them on ships, I'll ask the wife, but I thought she'd mentioned the ships have 240s as well.

This is true, but given the scenario he is laying out they will have likely acquired some rifles and shotguns by the time they get to your house.

But again - they will not have trained with these nor does the scenario take into account defending your home from a distance.

Even IF 10 goons manage to acquire better arms AND manage to breach my house...I am feeling pretty good about my chances with my 870 and 1187 and creating a chokepoint on the stairs - this is where the planning comes into play.

Yeah, assuming everyone else has weapons you'd be better off packing heat too. But if I was given the choice between going to an island full of guns and an island with almost no guns in an apocalypse scenario, I'd go to no-guns island every time. The higher the threshold is for deadly violence the better for everyone once things turn REALLY sour.

I mean, the gun crime in the US is already way higher than all other western societies. Throw in famine and lack of fresh water and shelter into the mix and I doubt things are gonna get better lol

Having a family would suck major balls if society came crashing down. It would be hard enough to survive on your own without having to look after your wife and kids. The best solution is going out into the woods and trying to survive in nature. That is why having basic outdoor skills like tracking, hunting, fishing, etc is a requirement.

Trying to make a supply run at your local grocery store = death. Dealing with crowds of panicking people who are also armed will never end well. If you have a hot wife or young daughters then you are double fukked. You would legitimately have to shoot any stranger who even saw your wife/daughters no hesitation on the spot.

Otherwise word would spread and a mob will come after them. We all know society is held together by a thin fabric. If some state of emergency happens for any longer than a week then you know people won't be able to control themselves. That is where firearms come into play. I rather kill every single person coming after me than become a victim.

I'll have to double check but I don't believe the M60 contract with US Ordnance is completed yet.

Location: Sweden

There are plenty of micro islands in the Baltic in the outskirts of Stockholm.

Alternatively you have Bornholm or even Gotland. You could always go north to the Lapplands or eastwards towards northern Finland. Hunt moose and large eagles.

LMFAO if you think guns are not readily available to any criminal in your country due to saturation.

In my country, it is extremely safe. We are a peaceful nation of alcoholics and lulzy chaps and not a powder keg ready to blow like the USA is. We don't have the time nor inclination to consider being thugged out thugs or badasses. The laws on guns over here are so strict that even air rifles are regulated. The few poverty 'Jihadi maniacs' we have over here that have to resort to running people over clearly show that guns are just not even brought onto this island in any significant number whatsoever.

I've lived for 44 years and never seen a gun in my life. SRS.Problem is, the next house along probably has an M16 too. So they might as well storm your place and take their chances in numbers.Yeah that was tongue-in-cheek, but surely you should be able to buy a minigun right? Why the fuk not? Too deadly?LMFAO listen to yourself. Talking like you'd be strutting around the place like the Terminator or Bonnie and Clyde.

When in reality your house would be swiss cheese in 30 seconds.

It would be like a scene out of Precinct 13.

The problem with this line of thinking - yea it's great if there really isn't a single gun on the island. but if someone manages to find one, or shows up with well armed....things get sour really quick.

Rather take my chances being one of many that are armed than not.

Would he?

Generally speaking, criminals don't like armed victims. If someone appeared to be a potential threat, wouldn't there be easier targets to pick from? Elderly? Unarmed citizens? Liberals?

Sure, in a straight up fight, a gang of thugs will take out a few armed citizens, but they might lose a couple of their own in the firefight. They aren't suicidal, they just want free ****.

At least the feminist movement will die a quick death. In most subsistence cultures women are property.

The US homicide rate outside of the urban welfare jungles is in line with EU levels.

The absence of arms isn't going to stop mob violence. You'd have people beating each other to death the same as you'd have people shooting each other.Has hot wife and daughter crew. Shooting all looters crew. More rounds of ammo than people living in a mile radius crew.


If anything, this thread has completely sold me on a pistol caliber carbine. There are going to be a lot of dead humans out there with pistol ammo on them.

You think your daughter's hot?

Yeah but I wouldn't want my gf/wife/daughters to become property. You know you will have to shoot every single male stranger on sight. It would be too much of a risk to let word out you had attractive females at your place. The best case scenario would be holding down fort with 1 other guy you trust like your brother/cousin so you can take rotating shifts looking for food/intruders somewhere deep in the woods. Most people would be too afraid to wander into nature so that is a good buffer. Also finding your own food supply would be the key for long term survival. Getting out of cities is the first thing you would have to do.

This has got to be a joke lol.

Yeah in a post-apocalypse, the easy prey will be picked off first.

But who was long term scenario?

Eventually, when things get really desperate, even the so-called 'good guys' will start killing each other for food.

Lulz, who's striding around?

My M14 and AR10 will reach out to 1000 yds all day. M14 has a 2.5-10x scope, AR10 is getting a 5-25x this XMas. You think these guys are going to shoot me with a pistol?

Look, I know that you have no understanding whatsoever of how firearms work, but if you've got a pistol and I've got a rifle and we're anything more than about 10 yds away from each other not only am I infinitely more likely to actually hit you, but I'm also infinitely more likely to be able to kill you when I do.

Fake news.

Being able to defend yourself is better than not being able to defend yourself.

And LOL @ someone that has zero experience with firearms having knowledge of things such things.

Is English your second language?

My daughter is 5.5, and I'm not an adherent of the religion of piss.

[QUOTE=Metz00 post_id=1519187251]Location: Sweden

There are plenty of micro islands in the Baltic in the outskirts of Stockholm.

Alternatively you have Bornholm or even Gotland. You could always go north to the Lapplands or eastwards towards northern Finland. Hunt moose and large eagles.[/QUOTE]Yeah I think this is a pretty great place to be in in a situation like this. Sparsely populated with quite fertile lands, lots of good fishing and wildlife. Not a lot of weapons around either.

[QUOTE=Cleveland33 post_id=1519187521]The problem with this line of thinking - yea it's great if there really isn't a single gun on the island. but if someone manages to find one, or shows up with well armed....things get sour really quick.

Rather take my chances being one of many that are armed than not.[/QUOTE]No, not really. Considering how few weapons there are here, assuming you stay away from people the chance of you bumping in to someone who is armed is very small. There's also the chance that he's not dangerous just because he's carrying a weapon. If you DO run into someone who is armed and with ill intentions then you might be fuked, but that's not likely to occur.

Now compare that to everyone you meet having a weapon. Sure, you have a chance to defend yourself, but it's still up in the air as to who wins. I think statistically speaking you're much more likely to survive in the first situation, because even though you feel more helpless it's much less likely to occur in the first place.

You can think of it kind of like the risk of dying in an airplane vs dying in a car accident. Airplanes feel scarier because you are completely helpless if something does happen. However car accidents are far more common, so it's much more dangerous to be in a car than in an airplane even if you have more control over the situation in the car. It's just an illusion of safety.

[QUOTE=Ikeman83 post_id=1519187691]The US homicide rate outside of the urban welfare jungles is in line with EU levels.

The absence of arms isn't going to stop mob violence. You'd have people beating each other to death the same as you'd have people shooting each other.[/QUOTE]Yeah that's a fair point actually, I don't really know how the gun violence is distributed. Still though, the lower the threshold is for deadly violence the more you're going to see of it once chit hits the fan. It's easy to kill someone with a gun if you get the drop on them, but if you're resorting to melee combat the outcome is far more chaotic (unless you're going after women, children or untrained men of course). That is a deterrent in itself I think. Of course mob violence is still a risk, but you're always gonna be fuked if you get ganged up on, no matter how heavily armed you are.

Shooting someone is easy and pretty disconnected from the act of actually taking a life. Repeatedly smashing someone's head in with a rock takes a different kind of character than pulling the trigger. This is of course merely speculation but I think there are lots of people who could shoot someone and take their food, but not nearly as many who would slit a throat or simply cave someone's skull in, unless they were attacked first.

[QUOTE=BustaCapp post_id=1519188011]This has got to be a joke lol.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/TlkWS7V.gif[[/QUOTE]Brb hiking across all of Sweden to go eagle hunting in Finland.

I mean geography aside he has a point, there's plenty of game in Sweden and not too many people so the forest could probably support you assuming you don't get killed by a mob.

ITT Bustacap explains how stupid the modern liberal is.

Google videos of the Koreans on rooftops during the LA riots. Thugs will go after the weaker targets. If you arm yourself, you are not a weaker target.

Dis u?

This has already been addressed in the thread if you actually bother to read it you idiot.

Koreans were simply holding out until law and order were restored later that week.

There are people who get into shootouts for simple arguments with zero stakes right now. Imagine if there was some world ending event. You better be armed. Everyone is suddenly going to become 10x more aggressive and paranoid. Add firearms to the mix and no thx jeff. Avoiding other people would have to be priority number one. Just get out of city centers asap.

I really don't think you understand the mindset of Americans, especially rednecks.

They'll group together forming small societies - there will be internal skirmishes and breakaways and even "wars" between them, but overall I think most people would work to be part of a small society as the benefits outweigh the negatives. With a decimated human population, wildlife populations will actually escalate and these people understand raising livestock and crops.

Food is actually one of the lower commodities I would am concerned about due to this. Medication is much higher - not even stuff that people need for their own conditions but things like antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, and painkillers.