The Final Cut

The Economic Collapse Blog asks "why are banking executives in London killing themselves?"

Mexican Sailor Survives 16 Months Adrift (Updated)

The Daily Mail reports:

An emaciated man whose boat washed up on a remote Pacific atoll this week claims he has survived 16 months adrift on the Pacific. 

The Spanish-speaking man believed to be named Jose Ivan was discovered by locals on Thursday when his 24-foot fibreglass boat with propellerless engines floated onto the reef at Ebon Atoll. 

Ivan, who has long hair and beard, claims to have floated more than 12,500 kilometre (8,000 miles) from Mexico over the course of 16 months until he washed up on the tiny islands.

... Ivan indicated to Fjeldstad that he survived by eating turtles, birds and fish and drinking turtle blood when there was no rain. 

No fishing gear was on the boat and Ivan suggested he caught turtles and birds with his bare hands. There was a turtle on the boat when it landed at Ebon. 

Stories of survival in the vast Pacific are not uncommon. In 2006, three Mexicans made international headlines when they were discovered drifting, also in a small fibreglass boat near the Marshall Islands, in the middle of the ocean in their stricken boat, nine months after setting out on a shark-fishing expedition.

 Updated (2/5/2014): Fox News gives more details:

Mexico's Foreign Relations Department says the man told Mexico’s ambassador to the Philippines, Julio Camarena, that he set out from an area near the coastal town of Tonala in southern Chiapas state, which would mean his journey covered a distance of more than 6,500 miles, if he drifted in a straight line.

... the survivor told the following story:

He's a native of El Salvador but had lived in Mexico for 15 years and fishes for a man he knows as Willie, catching sharks for 25 pesos ($1.90) per pound.

On Dec. 21, 2012, Alvarenga left Mexico in his 23-foot fiberglass boat for a day’s fishing, accompanied by a teen he knew only as Ezekiel, who was between 15 and 18.

A storm blew the fishermen off course, and soon they were lost and adrift.

"He talked about scooping up little fish that swam alongside the boat and eating them raw," Armbruster said. "He also said he ate birds, and drank birds' blood."

After about a month, Ezekiel died, the survivor told officials.

Alvarenga also talked about eating turtles. Once near Ebon, he swam ashore.

"He thanked God, initially, that he had survived," the ambassador said. "He's very anxious to get back in touch with his employer, and also with the family of Ezekiel. That's his driving motivation at the moment."

In Costa Azul, a fishing hamlet near Tonala, fishing boat owner Villermino Rodriguez Solis, who assumes his son is the "Willie" that Alvarenga referred to, said Alvarenga and a companion had gone missing on Nov. 18, 2012, which would imply the sea odyssey lasted 14½ months.

"Here, his colleagues went out in boats to look for them. They spent four days looking for them," said Villermino, who expressed surprise that Alvarenga had been found alive in the Marshall Islands.

Residents of Costa Azul said they didn't know Alvarenga's real name. He had shown up looking for work years before, but worked from fishing camps along the coast. They knew him only by a nickname, "La Chancha," used to describe heavy-set people. It was clear he was an experienced fisherman, they said.

... Erik van Sebille, a Sydney-based oceanographer at the University of New South Wales, said there was a good chance a boat drifting off Mexico’s west coast would eventually be carried by currents to the Marshall Islands. He said such a journey would typically take 18 months to two years depending on the winds and currents, although 13 months was possible.

"The way that the currents in the Pacific work is that there is a very strong westerly current just north of the equator and that basically drives you directly from Mexico all the way toward Indonesia and in the path, you go right over the Marshall Islands," he said.

"Dear Mr. Security Agent"--Scapegoats and Othering (Updated)

Western Rifle Shooters Association has posted an open letter from Matthew Bracken to law enforcement advising them of the risks of participating in gun confiscation. It is worth the read. But one thing I want to take especial note of is his comments about the left creating "scapegoats" of white males. The process he talks about is sometimes called "othering," and the MSM is very good at it. As Bracken notes:

Scapegoating an unpopular group is standard operating procedure for budding socialist dictators wrecking once-free economies. For the Soviets, it was the Kulaks; for the Chinese it was the so-called “landlords.” I could list more recent cases to include Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala, Rwanda and others. Once disarmed and helpless to resist, the hated national scapegoats are slaughtered by the millions.

... In America today, we are seeing the beginning of an insidious scapegoating process, with older conservative white Christian males designated as the national Lucifer du jour, fair game for any vicious attack. Famous black movie stars joke about murdering white folks and white liberal media stars laugh along with them, conveying elite acceptance of the prevailing “evil whitey” meme.

... The path forward that is indicated by the media’s growing acceptance of these vile and outrageous anti-white celebrity rants, cartoons, and articles is the same path that in previous eras led to the guillotine, the gulag, and the gas chamber for the scapegoated populations. But the final solution—genocide of the scapegoats—is only possible after the mob is sufficiently inflamed with hatred toward them by the mass media, in collaboration with an evil government. And time after time, it works.

We are seeing the opening stages of the scapegoating of white conservatives today, as the last election seems to demonstrate to the left’s satisfaction that a crucial political and demographic tipping point has been passed, and the ultimate power equations of raw tribal loyalty have changed in a fundamental way—and now it’s payback time.

We have seen this play out before in other countries and times, and it is deadly serious. Once the scapegoating gets far enough under way, it can pick up a life and a momentum of its own. For example, if the economy ever truly crashes, and the EBT system that feeds fifty million Americans goes down hard, leading to hunger, looting, and riots, (or we suffer other unforeseen problems of similar crisis proportions), the scapegoats will always be dragged to the forefront as the pre-designated patsy, to deflect blame from the government.

Please read the whole thing.

Update: I just happened across this post at ChicagoBoyz on "Otherizing":

To put it in simple terms, that’s what I call it when a whole group, or sub-set of people are deemed the Emmanuel Goldstein of the moment by a dominant group, and set up as a focus for free-wheeling hate. In practice, this hate may range all the way from a mild disinclination to associate professionally or socially, all the way to 11 in marking the object of that hate as a suitable target for murder, either singly or in wholesale lots – and sometimes with the cooperation and blessing of the state. It’s more something that I have read about – either in the pages of history books, or in the newspapers – and increasingly on-line. Still, it is no end distressing to see it developing here in these United States in this century. Am I paranoid about this current bout of ‘otherizing’? Perhaps – but don’t tell me that it cannot happen here.

More Evidence to Support Russian Theories of the Black Plague?

When I first started reading about the plague several years ago, there were actually conflicting theories concerning bubonic plague. American researchers believed (and probably still do) that there was but a single strain of y. pestis bacteria responsible for bubonic plague. This raised the issue, though, of why certain plagues (the Justinian plague and the Black Death) were so deadly and virulent compared to later outbreaks of plague. It was not too long ago that some researches argued that the Black Death was not caused by y. pestis, but was some form of hemorrhagic fever. That issue has been settled by genetic testing which has shown that victims of the Black Death had died of y. pestis. Later research showed that the y. pestis that killed victims in the Black Death was unrelated to modern strains of plague. 

Earlier this year, scientist confirmed that Justinian's plague, in the 5th and 6th centuries, was also due to y. pestis. Yesterday, the Daily Mail ran an article noting research had shown that Justinian's plague was a different strain from that of today and that of the Black Death. From the article:

Tiny samples of the plague bacteria were taken from skeletons belonging to two victims of the Justinian plague who were buried in Bavaria, Germany. 

Fragments of DNA were found in their 1,500-year-old teeth and used to recreate the bacteria’s whole genetic code.

Researchers compared it with a database of hundreds of modern plague pathogens, some of which still kill thousands every year.

The study, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, shows the strain responsible for the Justinian outbreak was an evolutionary ‘dead-end’ and distinct from strains involved later in the Black Death and subsequent pandemics. 

A third pandemic, which spread from Hong Kong across the globe is also likely a descendant of the Black Death strain and thus much more successful than the one responsible for the Justinian Plague. 

Ancient DNA expert Professor Hendrik Poinar said: 'The research is both fascinating and perplexing, it generates new questions which need to be explored, for example why did this pandemic, which killed somewhere between 50 and 100 million people die out?'

At first glance, this research actually seems to be further confirmation of the Russian model. Under both the Russian and American models, y. pestis resides in certain rodent populations, which provide a reservoir for the disease. Under the American model--at least in the past--there were no real differences in strains. That is, the plague was the plague was the plague. This apparently has been modified to allow for various strains, but which evolve and then die off. The Russian model, on the other hand, believes the type of rodent making up the reservoir has an impact on the strain. That is, the y. pestis in rats and American rodents is a different strain from those found in Middle-Eastern gerbils which is different from central Asian marmots.

As I understand the history, Justinian's plague spread out of Africa to the Byzantine empire, and thence into Europe. The Black Plague is generally understood to have spread from central Asia westward across Asia (devastating the Muslim Middle-East) and into Europe; and eastward into China. (As a side note, an estimate of 100,000,000 dead from the Black Plague is probably on the low side--it appears to have killed nearly half of the populations of China and Middle-East, and slightly less--a third--in Europe). Thus, the variance in strains can just as easily be explained by the Russian model as a theory that certain strains had died off.

Interestingly, the books I've read on the Black Plague indicate that the spread of plague was probably enabled by a cooling trend in the Earth's climate. The same is suggested about Justinian's plague--that dust from Haley's comet may have caused global cooling with resulting famines, making it easier for the plague to spread.

RIP Ammo

I've had a couple people email me concerning G2Research's RIP ammo. Some information, and a couple videos, are available at The Liberty Digest or at G2R's website. G2R claims that it is the last round you will ever need. Currently, it is only being made in 9 mm, but there are plans to manufacture it for other popular semi-auto calibers and for shotguns.

Color me a little skeptical on its effectiveness. There are eight petals which apparently break off of a button looking base. G2R's theory is that the tip of the petals act like saw blades, cutting through clothing or other material as the bullet spins; and, on impact, the petals break off creating multiple wound channels.

The video shows multiple shots into ballistic gelatin. The only deep penetration of the ballistic gelatin is from the button—the petals don’t penetrate very far and appear to break off immediately on impact. So, I have grave doubts about its ability to retain much mass when going through thick clothing or a barrier. There is little disruption of the gelatin by the button portion--although there are no measurements provided, it doesn't appear to have much more disruption than a .22 LR bullet.

And at $50 per box, it won't be practical to practice with it.

The shotgun round may show more promise, but we'll have to see if anything comes of it.

Interactive Crime Rates Infographics

I was recently told of a interesting tool--an interactive crime rates infographic for the United States.

On the main map, each state is color coded so you can see at a glance a rough comparison of that state versus the others.

Clicking on a particular state will then bring up more particular information for how that state compares against others (a low ranking--e.g., 5th--is good; whereas a low ranking--e.g., 40th--indicates a high crime rate) as to specific types of crime: violent crime, murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault (i.e., assaults with deadly weapons), property crimes, burglary, larceny theft, and auto theft. Anyway, check it out.

The Dark Side of Survivalism

I've posted a few times before about trying to stay positive as we enter the End Times. I recently came across a lengthy article at the Survival Acres blog that touched on this issue, as well as others. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything in the post, this, I believe, addresses an important issue:

Here’s what I REALLY want to lay out for you all — Survivalism, if embraced to the degree that many are heavily promoting, will lead you down a one-way street of despair. If this has not yet happened to you, be glad. I personally know of thousands that it has happened to — because I helped them get there. And I witnessed first-hand what others did.

...Extreme survivalism can lead to a need to constantly engage and participate in endless fear-mongering to feed the hungry demons created within. You can see this in the comments on many website, how “prepared” some of these people claim to be, or ready to “do battle” with the ungodly. Their lives are miserable fearful caricatures of what they could be living. There is a lot of postings from these same people, over and over again, demanding “attention” and seeking justification and validation of their world-views from others online. They’re easy to pick out because they blabber so much.

The truth of the matter is that prepping is supposed to bring peace of mind. You know what I mean...if the power goes out for a few hours, or even a few days, no big deal; if the furnace breaks down and its three days until a repairman can stop by, well, you aren't going to freeze to death because you have alternative ways of heating your home; if you lose your job, you have food and other essentials to carry you through and perhaps supplement what you might get in your unemployment check, until you find employment or get a business up and running.

To be honest, one of the things I like the best about having food storage is NOT having that last minute trip to the store because we ran out of ketchup, or whatever--just open up the pantry and grab another one.

I think one of the ways to keep from falling into the negative trap described above is the gardening aspect of prepping. Planting a garden, whether it is a large garden plot or a small selection of potted plants on your patio or window ledge, focuses you on nurturing and growing something, exposes you to a bit of sunshine and air. And, of course, keep focused on the important parts of your life--your family and friends.

Interesting Trick to Remove a Stuck Wedding Ring

One of my readers directed my attention to a video of a neat trick for removing a ring from your finger. I can remember my father having to cut his wedding band off his finger because he had smashed his finger while working on a car engine. Luckily he had the tools at hand to do so. But his ring was cut, twisted, and he never got it repaired.

Ukraine Protests Continue; President Offers to Share Power

The Daily Mail has photos and a story about the latest in the protests. I'm not even going to try and summarize. Hopefully, this won't go the same route as the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.

Exploding Another Firearm Myth

I recently wrote about what I consider to be the top 5 firearms myths among preppers. After some further reflection, there is another myth that is out there. And it hits close to home because I fell for it.

Myth # 6--Get Your Long Distance Rife In The Same Caliber As Your Battle Rifle.

This myth generally shows up when considering the a 7.62 NATO battle rifle (e.g., a FAL or M-1A). The theory behind this is that if you also get a dedicated long distance precision rifle, you can use the same ammunition for both in a pinch. The unspoken assumption is that your precision rifle will fire the military surplus stuff you feed your FAL or M-1A accurately enough to be useful. 

It is the unspoken assumption that likely will not hold up. Bullet weight for hunting ammunition and match-grade ammunition in the .308/7.62 NATO is generally 168 grains or heavier. Bullet weight for 7.62 NATO is 142 grains. Your precision rifle likely has a twist rate that is intended for heavier weight bullets. And, because of that, the precision rifle may be horribly inaccurate when shooting the lighter weight NATO rounds. My experience--even using good quality ammunition--was that the accuracy degraded to such an extent that I would have been uncomfortable relying on the 142 grain bullets at anything further than 100 to 150 yards.

Your experience may not be mine. But if you feel you need a long distance precision rifle, don't limit your selection to .308 just for the sake of compatibility. If a .308 rifle fills your needs, then that is great. But if you are in area with lots of wide-open spaces, maybe you need to step up to a .300 Winchester Magnum or some other cartridge with longer effective range. If you already have an accurate rifle in .243, .270 or .30-06 that you use for hunting, perhaps that rifle can also fulfil your needs for a long-distance precision rifle. If you anticipate being in an urban area, an accurized AR may also suffice--it certainly was the workhorse for many of the snipers in Iraq.

Stocks, Emerging Market Currencies Fall Sharply

CNBC reports:

U.S. stocks fell sharply and Treasuries rallied on Friday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbling triple-digits for a second session and posting its worst week since November 2011, as investors pulled money from emerging markets and other assets viewed as risky.

As Wall Street's faith in some of the world's largest developed countries unraveled, currencies of those nations were hit, with Turkey's lira falling to a record low against the dollar, and Argentina's peso down sharply against the U.S. currency.

"We've touched off by what's going on around the world, so to speak, and are reallocating assets from some of the emerging markets into what is thought of as more reliable," said JJ Kinahan, chief strategist at TD Ameritrade. "It's a safe parking spot," Kinahan added of fixed income.

... "Emerging-market currencies have been coming under pressure causing some to erroneously point out it is because of the Fed taper. It is more because of political instability in countries like Argentina and Turkey, which is just another reason to stay underweight EM," Nick Raich, CEO at the Earnings Scout, wrote in emailed research.

The Telegraph also reports:

The Turkish lira sank to a record low of 2.30 to the dollar as worries about the current account deficit - 7pc of GDP - combine with a loss of confidence in the country's political stability. The Sunni Muslim premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday that Turkey is facing "war" within its borders, partly the result of a spillover from the Shia-Sunni conflict in Syria.

Turkey's deputy prime minister Ali Babacan said in Davos that the plunge in the lira was a result of a foreign exchange "repricing process", denying that there had been any capital outflows. However, the country is close to a major crisis with foreign reserves down to $33bn, barely enough to cover six weeks of imports. 

South Africa's rand slumped to 11 to the dollar, and has lost almost 30pc over the past year. Venezuela has been forced to devalue certain controlled transactions as reserves fall to a 10-year low. 

The latest rout turned serious after a 12pc fall in Argentina's peso on Thursday, triggered by the central bank's decision to abandon efforts to support the currency. It was the biggest one-day fall since the crash in 2002, when Argentina left the dollar peg.

But why the blame on the Fed tapering quantitative easing? From the Telegraph article cited above:

The IMF's deputy-director, Min Zhu, said in Davos that the Fund is watching the violent gyrations around the world "very carefully", saying the effect of bond tapering by the US Federal Reserve is causing global liquidity to dry up. 

Mr Zhu said this had combined with a slow structural crisis in a number of developing states that have already picked the low-hanging fruit of catch-up growth, warning that those that resist market reforms "will face trouble".

An internal study by the IMF concluded that the effects of quantitative easing by the Fed had led to a $470bn flow of funds into emerging markets that would not have occurred otherwise. Officials say privately that a sudden reversal as the Fed tapers is a major risk, and could be hard to control.  

... Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, said Fed tapering was the "straw that broke the camel's back" for the BRICS and the emerging market darlings of the last cycle.

"They benefited hugely from the credit boom, a commodities super-cycle propelled in large part by China’s double-digit growth rates and “hyper-globalization” as multinational corporations expanded global supply chains. But all three effects are now falling away." 

"They squandered their opportunity. Productivity has plummeted and they face daunting structural challenges. Without major microeconomic reforms, a return to the BRICS party of the 2000s is unlikely. Turn out the lights,” Mr Behravesh concluded.

The Globe and Mail also explains:

Demand for bonds forces their prices up and their yields down. So by buying hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. Treasuries, the Fed shoves borrowing costs lower because credit prices tend to be marked against the cost of U.S. debt. But QE also is an attempt to bully private investors into spreading their money around.

When times are uncertain, there is a natural attraction to buy Treasuries, the safest asset on the market. Through QE, the Fed effectively blocks that option, forcing profit seekers to look elsewhere.

After five years of QE, no one is quite sure how out of sync financial markets might be. Some see bubbles everywhere, others see none at all. The “reach for yield” could explain some of the current turmoil in emerging markets.When the Fed was buying bonds indefinitely, investors sought profits in the stocks and bonds of countries such as Brazil and Turkey. But once it became clear the Fed was preparing to end QE, investors recalculated. Many rushed home to the United States, causing volatility in the markets they left behind.

It seems to be a chicken and the egg argument. However, it doesn't appear that the rush to buy Treasuries is motivated as much by profit seeking as a quest for security. This would indicate that the primary mover is insecurity and lack of confidence in the emerging markets, just as stated in the CNBC article cited earlier.

China's Demographic Cliff

I've written before about the demographic problems facing China because of the one-child policy, but didn't have numbers to illustrate the decline. This article at CNBC outlines the numbers:

Sanyal (who defines working age as 20-59) predicts China's workforce will decline modestly from 853.7 million in 2015 to 848.9 million by 2020, but then will then drop sharply to 781.8 million by 2030, 743 million by 2040 and 650.9 million in 2050.

In December, China's top legislature approved a loosening of the country's controversial one-child policy that was introduced in the 1970s in an effort to address demographic challenges including a shrinking labor force, rising elderly population and male-female imbalances.

However, Sanyal says a large decline in the Chinese workforce is now unavoidable irrespective of the removal of the one-child policy.

Due to a skewed gender ratio, China no longer has enough child-bearing age women to stabilize its population, he said. In the mainland, there are almost 118 boys born for every 100 girls.

The decline has already started--the article notes that China's workforce had declined for the second year in a row last year.

This is probably one of the biggest stories of the decade. It raises the question: will China grow rich before it grows old?

"It's A Mistake" (Updated)

I'll probably get some eye-rolls for quoting from an old Men At Work song as my title, but its seems apropos for this article from the Hoover Institute called "War: The Gambling Man's Game." The key point:

[Geoffrey] Blainey argues that assessments of relative power drive decisions on war and peace, and that war occurs when nations misjudge their relative power. He writes, “War is usually the outcome of a diplomatic crisis which cannot be solved because both sides have conflicting estimates of their bargaining power.” Disputes about issues central to states’ interests can be negotiated when there is a clear hierarchy of power—the weaker compromises to prevent war. When there is doubt about the weaker party, compromise is elusive and wars occur, because “war itself provides the most reliable and most objective test of which nation or alliance is the most powerful...war was therefore usually followed by an orderly market in political power, or in other words, peace.”

... Blainey is no determinist; he sees the historical specifics as important in each war. But looking across 300 years of war and peace, he sees the greatest incidence of wars when states are confident about their future, even when others in the international order rate their futures less optimistically. World War I is, as he so wonderfully phrases it, “the haven of the theory.” Blainey quotes Bethmann Hollweg, chancellor of Germany at the outbreak of the war: “Our people had developed so amazingly in the last twenty years that wide circles succumbed to the temptation of overestimating our enormous forces in relation to those of the rest of the world.”

In other words, war can be the results of mistakes in assessing the relative power (or, I would add, the presumption on how an opponent will react to provocation). David P. Goldman has noted in his writings that war is not limited to rational causes, but that nations will go to war when they have nothing to lose--such as a collapsing culture.

We sit at an interesting time when we can actually watch these theories play out in the real world. Right now, China and Japan are assessing their relative strengths and weaknesses. China is currently an ascendant power--i.e., a confident power. I suspect that both have a good idea of their positions. The unknown is how the United States would react. Japan, obviously, hopes that the U.S. would come to its aid in any conflict (and probably expects so given the treaties between the two nations). China, however, will heavily base its decisions on whether it believes the United States will stay out of a conflict. (Germany made the same estimate in WWI as to Great Britain coming to the aid of the French, and guessed wrong). If we had a Reagan or Bush as President, there would be no question of as to how the United States would react. But given our current President's history of abandoning and insulting allies, I would not even hazard a guess.

Goldman's caveat is also at play here as we look at the Middle-East and, in particular, Iran. They can't possibly be optimistic that they could successfully challenge the United States militarily. However, they could be desperate, or hopeless enough, to do so.

H/t Instapundit

Update: Some comments from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Telegraph:

He [Japan's PM] went on to tell Gideon Rachman at the FT that China and Japan were in a "similar situation" to the German and England in 1914, caught in dangerous process of great power escalation – even though their economies were intertwined by trade. 

As readers know, I have been writing about this parallel for a long time. China is exploiting incidents to test the willingness of the United States to stand behind its treaty alliance with Japan, just as Kaiser Wilhelm provoked spats to test England's willingness to stand behind its entente with France. It was a self-reinforcing process before 1914, and it is self-reinforcing now. All it takes to produce a catalyst is some "damn fool thing in the Balkans" to borrow a term. 

Yet it is not just a calculated policy by China's Communist Party, a stirring up of revanchiste nationalism to replace the dead ideology of Maoism. Emotions are also running out of control, and Mr Abe is of course a red-flag for a bull. 

The Japanese leader is a hard-core nationalist. Despite his pitch yesterday that Japan has "sworn an oath never again to wage a war", his government is in fact rearming fast. Japan has increased spending on military equipment by 23pc last year and is launching its largest ship since the Second World War, a helicopter carrier that can be used for hybrid jets. 

Listening to the raw passion in the voices of Shinzo Abe and Wang Yi over the last 24 hours, I think there is an astonishing level [of] complacency about the world's most dangerous fault-line.

Top 5 Firearms Myths Among Preppers (Original)

There are several myths or misconceptions about firearms that seem to float around the prepper community and pop up regularly. While I don't consider them to be "myths that will get you killed" or something similarly dramatic, they do a disservice to preppers--particularly those without extensive experience with firearms and ammunition--and potentially waste time and money.

Myth #1: Bigger is Better.

This myth most often shows up in arguments of caliber--particularly .223/5.56 mm versus 7.62 NATO/.308, or 9 mm versus .40 S&W versus .45 ACP. Let me answer this issue right now: it depends.

First, it depends on the type of ammunition being used (lead, FMJ, hollow-point, soft-point, partition, etc.) and your purpose. Are you talking about shooting elk, or rabbit? Are you talking about just lethality, or do want recoverable meat? Since my topic is self-defense, I am only going to consider effectiveness against a human being. Just remember, though, that you may have other considerations to take into account.

When it comes to effectiveness against a human being, I will acknowledge that common deer cartridges (e.g., .30-06, .308, .270, etc.) are superior to .223 when discussing hunting ammunition--i.e. soft-point or some other type of expanding bullet. Assuming consistent controlled expansion, the larger bullet will present a larger diameter at full expansion than a smaller bullet, causing a larger wound channel. The larger bullet will likely also cause greater hydrostatic shock as the now fat and stubby projectile is better at transferring energy to the target.

However, most preppers do not store or use hunting ammunition for their self-defense rifle. Rather, the vast majority use FMJ (full metal jacket) ammunition. Expansion of FMJ ammunition is a non-issue, because it doesn't expand. The issue instead become one of bullet upset and/or fragmentation. When comparing FMJ wounding between .30 caliber versus small bullets from rifles, both research and experience has shown that smaller bullets cause larger wounds. (See also here).

Even this doesn't resolve the question because, again, application will suggest what caliber is best for your situation. The smaller calibers begin to lose their lethality after 150 yards, and it is generally presumed that the effective range is approximately 300 to 400 yards. They also have poorer penetration against many forms of hard cover. 7.62 NATO has a longer effective range, and better penetration of wood, brick, cinder block, etc.

Handguns present a somewhat different proposition. First, most anyone using a handgun for self-defense will probably be using a hollow point bullet of some sort. With modern self-defense ammunition, the difference between the popular self-defense rounds is actually fairly minimal--part of the reason that the FBI and other law enforcement are moving from .40 S&W back to 9 mm.

Second, shot placement, and the ability to make quick and accurate follow up shots, are much more critical with a handgun. This is best illustrated by some research performed by Greg Ellifritz and published on the Buckeye Shooters Association site. He writes:

Over a 10-year period, I kept track of stopping power results from every shooting I could find. I talked to the participants of gunfights, read police reports, attended autopsies, and scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot.

I documented all of the data I could; tracking caliber, type of bullet (if known), where the bullet hit and whether or not the person was incapacitated. I also tracked fatalities, noting which bullets were more likely to kill and which were not. It was an exhaustive project, but I'm glad I did it and I'm happy to report the results of my study here.

His results showed that, statistically, the .22 was one of the most lethal handgun round. For instance, with the .22, 34% of hits were lethal, it took an average of 1.38 hits to incapacitate the target (i.e., the target stopped being aggressive--not necessarily that the target was incapable of further aggression), and 31% of incidents were one-shot-stops. For comparison, the .45 ACP was 29% lethal, took on average 2.08 rounds to incapacitate, and produced a one-shot-stop 39% of the time; the .40 S&W was 25% fatal, took an average of 2.36 rounds to incapacitate, but had a one-shot-stop of 45%; the 9 mm was 24%, 2.45, and 34% (however, nearly half of his data points were from shootings involving FMJ rounds, which he believes skewed the 9 mm down compared to other calibers); the .38 Special was 29%, 1.87, and 39%; and the .357 Magnum was 34%, 1.7, and 44%. He has other calibers listed as well, if you want to compare your favorite round.

Ellifritz concluded:

What matters even more than caliber is shot placement. Across all calibers, if you break down the incapacitations based on where the bullet hit you will see some useful information.

Head shots = 75% immediate incapacitation
Torso shots = 41% immediate incapacitation
Extremity shots (arms and legs) = 14% immediate incapacitation.

No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!

In other words, with handguns, accuracy is far more important than caliber.

Myth #2: You need specialized guns for specialized purposes. 

Firearms are tools, and certain jobs take particular tools. For instance, you wouldn't use a hammer when you need a screwdriver, and you are not going to lug around a FAL rifle as your concealed carry weapon, nor would you use your .32 "mouse gun" to hunt big game. However, I notices some people carrying this to an extreme, wanting numerous guns for very specialized and specific tasks.

This is partly the result of gun manufacturers and gun media pushing the latest and greatest for particular and specific types of shooting or hunting. It is also historical in the prepping community. Mel Tappan, for instance, took the approach that you needed "defensive guns" versus "working guns," then subdividing each category down further and further, until he was recommending that clients have a dozen or more different models and calibers of firearms depending on whether they were putting down a horse, shooting a snake, defending against bandits, riding in a car, hiking in the woods, etc. In his book Surviving Doomsday, "Boston Tea Party" in the same vein recommends purchasing at least 4 handguns and at least 7 rifles (one of them exclusively for when traveling) and then writes:

Rifles are merely tools, and no one tool can do it all (although a scoped FAL or AR10 comes close...). Think of rifles like shoes: how many pairs of shoes do you have? You've got tennis shoes, running shoes, dress shoes, beach sandals, hiking boots, work boots, and house slippers. That's seven pairs of footwear. Now, does seven rifles sound so extreme?

Boston goes on to recommend at least three more rifles to get and lays on the guilt trip: "Will three rifles giving 95% be enough? Is that a gamble you can make in good conscience?"

I've written on this topic before in more detail, but this is the gist of my arguments as to why this approach is wrong:

First, and foremost, is the sheer expense of purchasing a large number of different types of firearms and their necessary ammunition, magazines, spare parts, and other accessories. While you will need defensive firearms, I believe you would be better off taking the money you would otherwise put into specialist firearms and use it instead to pay down debt, add to your savings account, purchase stockpiles of food or other equipment, or purchase extra ammunition or accessories for a basic battery of weapons. In short, minimize where possible and put the savings into other preparations.

Second, you will probably have to relocate or temporarily abandon your home or retreat at some point, and maybe more than once. You won't be able to carry a lot of weapons if you are on foot, you probably won't want to carry a large number in a vehicle, and you may not have time to hide a large arsenal. While looters and scavengers may appreciate your leaving a large arsenal of weapons, it probably won't do you any good.

Third, what you carry should be able to serve both as a working gun and a defensive weapon. If you are out hunting and suddenly come under fire, the other side is not going to give you a time-out while you go back to your shelter to exchange your hunting rifle for a combat rifle. Similarly, the need for fresh meat may require you to take game when out on a security patrol or reconnaissance.

Fourth, these recommendations generally assume that the prepper will be living in a remote area as homesteaders--running a working ranch or small farm, with gardens and orchards to boot, and trying to be self-sufficient in most every way. I would question the application of accumulating a large number of specialist weapons to even that small group of people, let lone the suburban or urban survivalist.

To sum up my thoughts on this matter, I want to share something simple, yet profound, that I read in the book High Country Hunting by Lloyd Bare. Bare noted the amazement and disapproval he generally encountered when other hunters learned that he used a .300 Winchester Magnum BAR for all of his big game hunting, be it deer, sheep, elk or bear. He explained:

In my gun cabinet you'll find one big game rifle (the BAR), one .22, one varmint rifle and one shotgun. In other words, I'm a hunter not a “gun nut” and I say that with kindest regards to gun experts and aficionados. Some of my best friends own a closet full of guns, one for every purpose. 

(High Country Hunting, p. 208). As preppers, we too should strive for simplicity. After all, you have to buy ammo for all this stuff, have to learn to shoot it well, and may have to evacuate with it.

Suffice it to say that this is a trap that can easily consume large amounts of money you could use for food storage or other preps.

Myth #3: Pre-1899 Firearms.

Some very prominent members of the prepping community have recommended buying pre-1899 weapons. The basic thrust of their argument is that because pre-1899 guns are not legally "firearms" under federal law, they fall outside federal jurisdiction and that this will protect you in the event of a gun confiscation. All of that is true to a point. The problem with the argument is that the "point" is a law that can easily be changed or ignored.

The selection of 1899 was an arbitrary choice. Congress could change the date or definition of firearms at any time. As an example of how broad the definition of "firearms" could be, you should look up your local ordinance prohibiting the discharge of a firearm within city limits and see how it defines "firearm." Most likely, it will be something vague that includes all firearms of any type or age, airguns, and probably bows and crossbows, etc. Congress could adopt just as broad of definition. 

From a more practical standpoint, imagine that the federal, state or local government has decided to confiscate firearms (e.g., as done in New Orleans post-Katrina). When the SWAT team (or whomever) shows up at your door, do you think they are going to distinguish between your Winchester lever action made in 1898 versus the one made in 1998? Do you think they are going to care one whit about your legal argument or justification on why they should take one and not the other? No. They will take them all, and let the court sort it out.

And what do you get when you buy a pre-1899 firearm anyway? Unless you can lay down the money for collector grade gun, you get an inferior firearm made of poorer steel and likely with substantial wear and tear, probably shooting an odd caliber that has been discontinued or hard to find. If you can find ammunition for the firearm, it likely won't be able to handle modern factory loads. You could have it converted to shoot another caliber, and send it to a gunsmith (who will dutifully write down the information in the records that the BATF requires him to keep) for the work, but that is an added expense on top of whatever outrageous price you paid for the weapon in the first place.

In short, the legal protection afforded by buying pre-1899 firearms is largely illusory. This is, again, a potential money pit that takes away from your other preps.

Myth #4: Your Primary Weapon is Your Rifle.

There are a significant number of preppers that seem to believe that when whatever earth-rendering disaster, financial collapse, or alien invasion occurs, we will suddenly be launched into a full-blown, "Mad Max" situation of kill-or-be-killed. They envision picking off bandits (or U.N. Peacekeepers) at hundreds of yards as they advance toward the particular prepper's retreat, all the while safely ensconced in a concealed location beyond the reach of the bandits' weapons. For instance, there was this post earlier today at the Survivalist Blog, stating:

... Distance ALWAYS equals two things. Time and safety. The time aspect of this is quite simple. The further away an enemy is from a target the longer it will take to achieve their objective. The further away from your loved ones that you can engage a threat provides reaction time for your and your loved ones to initiate whatever pre arranged defense protocols you have established. This in and of itself provides an added level of safety. If you are trying to protect your family, and they are going to be in the home, than the defense should be started as far away from the house as is possible. A good shot with an AR style rifle can ruin your day from five hundred meters in. I am aware that it may not be possible to establish a perimeter at that distance, but that would be best. I suggest possibly establishing a forward outpost at this distance if possible. A forward placed rifle and a few well placed shots may well be all it takes to persuade someone that its better to go somewhere else.

There is nothing wrong with this tactic ... in a war.  But when we prepare, we aren't necessarily preparing for the end of civilization, but other disasters, big and small and in-between. As Fernando "FerFal" Aguirre explains in his book, Surviving the Economic Collapse:

Rifles are terrific but they are not your main weapon. Again, here's the difference between a soldier or a SWAT member and you. 

A soldier carries his rifle because it's his job to do so while at war. SWAT guy has his rifle when doing his thing as well but both soldier guy and SWAT guy do NOT carry their rifles when they go pick up the kids at a friend's birthday party. And yes, the bad guys will attack you at that birthday party, or some other ridiculously unlikely circumstance. 

That's the way it is my friend. Understand that while I'm writing this tonight there are thousands staying awake in their beds thinking about possible plans and ideas to rob people like you and me.

(Surviving the Economic Collapse, p. 155). Massad Ayoob similarly wrote:

For you, it won't happen on a battlefield where the nearest Soviet soldier is 600 meters away behind a French hedgerow. For you, it will happen at point-blank range. Studies by the FBI show that the great majority of shoot-outs occur at a range of 7 yards or less, and more commonly at about 7 feet. And this is among police, whose statistics include running gunfights on the highway and long-distance gunfire exchanges with snipers and barricaded felons. 

The civilian, almost always, will fight his opponent face-to-face. In that close space he won't be able to bring a rifle or shotgun up before the attacker can take two steps forward and stab, club, or disarm him, or fire his own illegal gun. ...

(The Truth About Self Protection, p. 346). Ayoob also discusses the downsides to using a rifle at close quarters, such as the lack of mobility, the overpowering flash and stunning noise, and the need for two hands.

This is not to discount obtaining a rifle or shotgun. They have their place and, as I said earlier, I believe that this nation--the United States--will see another civil war. But I don't know when. It could be tomorrow, or 100 years from now. The burglar or mugger, though, is always with us.

Your primary weapon should be, where available, a good quality handgun, extra magazines (or speed loaders if you choose to use a revolver), a good supply of ammunition, and practice. Your rifle is secondary...at least for now.

Myth #5: Black Powder Firearms ... Just in Case.

This is one that I have never understood--the idea that you should add black powder firearms to your battery of defensive weapons. The general reasoning I've heard on this is that it is a back up for when you run out of ammunition for your modern weapons.

While a romantic notion, it is not a realistic one. Black powder firearms were a product of a functioning civilization and trading network. Making black powder takes materials that may not be available locally or in any great quantity, and can be dangerous. Percussion caps and primers require a fairly sophisticated manufacturing base. Even flints are not going to be available in all locations. If you are going to buy and store up caps and powder and ammunition, why not just purchase modern ammunition or components?

In addition, this is another firearm you have to learn to operate, repair, and provide for. Time and money that can be better spent elsewhere.

Final Comments

Just a few final comments. I am not arguing against collecting a wide variety of firearms, or shooting black powder firearms, if that is your "thing"--your hobby and passion. I'm just arguing against it as a survival preparation. Having a smaller number of weapons for which you have adequate stores of ammunition and, if necessary, magazines, and which you are good with, are going to be far more valuable than a safe full of different rifles for which you only have a few boxes of ammunition each.

In compiling this list, I am not attempting to downplay the role of self-defense and firearms for preppers. To me prepping is for both personal disasters, as well as regional and national disasters. At an individual level, we all face the threat of burglary, robbery, or worse. I also believe as part of my eschatology, based on statements made by past presidents of the LDS Church, that the United States will face civil war again, and possibly foreign invasion. Thus, I believe self-defense to be an important part of personal preparation.

Finally, find weapons you enjoy owning and shooting. These should be your go-to guns.

Update (1/24/2014): Max Velocity linked to this post, but took me to task for suggesting that the handgun should be your "primary" weapon. I have attempted to explain myself in a comment to his post, but I want to clarify my position, so I'm posting my reply here:

Max: With all due respect, I think you miss the point of my comments. My outlook is that prepping encompasses personal disasters (a mugging, a house fire, etc.) as well statistically more remote events (major flooding, earthquake, the proverbial SHTF, etc.). I believe people should take a baby-steps approach for prepping. Accordingly, my comments concerned something less than a SHTF, grid-down situation. I was talking about the standard day-to-day crime, or a localized or regional disaster such as a tornado, floods, etc., which might produce an opportunistic looter. Like you, I do not carry my rifle on me for common everyday activities. So my point was that the handgun is “primary” because it is the weapon you are most likely to have with you and the most likely to use. And you should train, purchase and plan accordingly.

Also, I want to make clear that I was not attempting to belittle the guest post at Survival Blog. I acknowledged his tactics were valid in a war, and I should have said something slightly broader such as a war-like state, conflict or a raid. I did not say that such a situation could not come to pass–in fact, I specifically said that I believed that our nation will see another civil war. That is also why I said that the rifle was not primary “…yet”.

I appreciate the opportunity to better explain my points.

This is a matter of perspective and, to a certain extent, semantics. I have noticed over the years that many prepping books and articles focus on SHTF events. The problem, I believe, is that when you start thinking about what you need to prepare for the metaphorical end of the world, it can be overwhelming and too easy to give up. I believe the better approach to prepping is to prepare for more likely events, and then you can broaden out to more statistically remote events. Sort of a crawl, walk, and then run approach. This is not to say that the financial system won't collapse, or that a nuclear war won't happen, but that to start small and closer to home. As an example, even if you felt it important to prepare for a nuclear war, first make sure you have working smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher before you build a fallout shelter. Similarly, don't think you need to go out and buy a year's supply of food tomorrow. Start building up a little here and there--get an extra weeks worth of food put away, then build up to a month, experiment with using your food storage, and slowly expand it as money and space allows.

I think the same approach is best for self-defense. Focus first on the more likely threat or risk, and then expand to cover other threats as you see fit. Work on obtaining the tools and ability to defend your person and house (cartilage) against a burglar before moving on to a mob or raiders. This is not to say that you won't someday face a mob or be subject to a home invasion, or a raid on your farm (if that is where you live), but that you are more likely to face the burglar. I'm not justifying ignoring the acquisition and use of a defensive rifle, I'm arguing against ignoring the handgun.

New York's Rat Information Portal

New York City offers a "Rat Information Portal" that links to maps showing relative numbers of rat infestations for different neighborhoods and sections of the city. An article about it at the Daily Mail.

Reviewing the "Doomsday Preppers" Show

The Practical Prepper has been running a series of reviews on Doomsday Preppers, analyzing both the good and the bad points raised.

Everyone Loves Fireworks!

Gizmodo has photographs and a video showing protesters in Kiev using fireworks as weapons. One example:

California Droughts (Updated)

The Daily Mail:

California is experiencing its worst drought since 1895 with no signs of it abating due to a stubborn ridge of high pressure that is lurking offshore and blocking typical winter weather.

Nearly four miles high and 2,000 miles long, it is to blame for the emerging drought as the mass of high air pressure has been blocking Pacific winter storms from coming ashore and bringing much needed to bring [sic] rain to the parched West Coast. 

The duration of the upper-level ridge of high pressure anchored off its north coast - since December 2012 - is unprecedented in modern weather records and puzzling researchers.

Well, I'm sure that it is being blamed on global warming by many, but I believe it has another source. In Deuteronomy 11:16-17, the Lord warns the ancient Israelites:

16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; 

17 And then the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you.

 Similarly, in 1 Kings 8:35 it notes:

When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them:

 There are numerous other instances where the scriptures record unusual droughts intended to punish the wicked and prompt the people to repent.

Updated: CBS San Francisco has interviewed Lynn Ingram, professor of paleoclimatology at U.C. Berkeley, who has indicated that this may be the worst drought in 500 years, and could be the start of a several decade long dry spell.

Argentina Limits On-Line Sales to Preserve Foreign Reserves

BBC News reports:

Argentina has introduced new restrictions on online shopping as part of efforts to stop foreign currency reserves from falling any further.

Anyone buying items through international websites will now need to sign a declaration and produce it at a customs office, where the packages have to be collected.

The procedure will need to be repeated for every new purchase.

Argentina's reserves of hard currencies dropped by 30% last year.

The government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has introduced a number of restrictions on transactions with foreign currency.

Items imported through websites such as Amazon and eBay are no longer delivered by post to people's home address. They need to be collected at the customs office.

Each individual is allowed to buy up to $25 (£15) a year from abroad tax free, but it has been hard for custom officials to keep accurate records of each consumer.

Once the $25 level is reached, online consumers in Argentina need to pay a 50% tax for each item bought from international websites.

The Top 5 Firearm Myths Among Preppers (Updated)

[Ed: Based on comments about this post, I have edited the section on Myth #4 to further clarify my my position and my reasoning for taking my position. If you want to see my original post, you can find it here]

There are several myths or misconceptions about firearms that seem to float around the prepper community and pop up regularly. While I don't consider them to be "myths that will get you killed" or something similarly dramatic, they do a disservice to preppers--particularly those without extensive experience with firearms and ammunition--and potentially waste time and money.

Myth #1: Bigger is Better.

This myth most often shows up in arguments of caliber--particularly .223/5.56 mm versus 7.62 NATO/.308, or 9 mm versus .40 S&W versus .45 ACP. Let me answer this issue right now: it depends.

First, it depends on the type of ammunition being used (lead, FMJ, hollow-point, soft-point, partition, etc.) and your purpose. Are you talking about shooting elk, or rabbit? Are you talking about just lethality, or do want recoverable meat? Since my topic is self-defense, I am only going to consider effectiveness against a human being. Just remember, though, that you may have other considerations to take into account.

When it comes to effectiveness against a human being, I will acknowledge that common deer cartridges (e.g., .30-06, .308, .270, etc.) are superior to .223 when discussing hunting ammunition--i.e. soft-point or some other type of expanding bullet. Assuming consistent controlled expansion, the larger bullet will present a larger diameter at full expansion than a smaller bullet, causing a larger wound channel. The larger bullet will likely also cause greater hydrostatic shock as the now fat and stubby projectile is better at transferring energy to the target.

However, most preppers do not store or use hunting ammunition for their self-defense rifle. Rather, the vast majority use FMJ (full metal jacket) ammunition. Expansion of FMJ ammunition is a non-issue, because it doesn't expand. The issue instead become one of bullet upset and/or fragmentation. When comparing FMJ wounding between .30 caliber versus small bullets from rifles, both research and experience has shown that smaller bullets cause larger wounds. (See also here).

Even this doesn't resolve the question because, again, application will suggest what caliber is best for your situation. The smaller calibers begin to lose their lethality after 150 yards, and it is generally presumed that the effective range is approximately 300 to 400 yards. They also have poorer penetration against many forms of hard cover. 7.62 NATO has a longer effective range, and better penetration of wood, brick, cinder block, etc.

Handguns present a somewhat different proposition. First, most anyone using a handgun for self-defense will probably be using a hollow point bullet of some sort. With modern self-defense ammunition, the difference between the popular self-defense rounds is actually fairly minimal--part of the reason that the FBI and other law enforcement are moving from .40 S&W back to 9 mm.

Second, shot placement, and the ability to make quick and accurate follow up shots, are much more critical with a handgun. This is best illustrated by some research performed by Greg Ellifritz and published on the Buckeye Shooters Association site. He writes:

Over a 10-year period, I kept track of stopping power results from every shooting I could find. I talked to the participants of gunfights, read police reports, attended autopsies, and scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot.

I documented all of the data I could; tracking caliber, type of bullet (if known), where the bullet hit and whether or not the person was incapacitated. I also tracked fatalities, noting which bullets were more likely to kill and which were not. It was an exhaustive project, but I'm glad I did it and I'm happy to report the results of my study here.

His results showed that, statistically, the .22 was one of the most lethal handgun round. For instance, with the .22, 34% of hits were lethal, it took an average of 1.38 hits to incapacitate the target (i.e., the target stopped being aggressive--not necessarily that the target was incapable of further aggression), and 31% of incidents were one-shot-stops. For comparison, the .45 ACP was 29% lethal, took on average 2.08 rounds to incapacitate, and produced a one-shot-stop 39% of the time; the .40 S&W was 25% fatal, took an average of 2.36 rounds to incapacitate, but had a one-shot-stop of 45%; the 9 mm was 24%, 2.45, and 34% (however, nearly half of his data points were from shootings involving FMJ rounds, which he believes skewed the 9 mm down compared to other calibers); the .38 Special was 29%, 1.87, and 39%; and the .357 Magnum was 34%, 1.7, and 44%. He has other calibers listed as well, if you want to compare your favorite round.

Ellifritz concluded:

What matters even more than caliber is shot placement. Across all calibers, if you break down the incapacitations based on where the bullet hit you will see some useful information.

Head shots = 75% immediate incapacitation
Torso shots = 41% immediate incapacitation
Extremity shots (arms and legs) = 14% immediate incapacitation.

No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!

In other words, with handguns, accuracy is far more important than caliber.

Myth #2: You need specialized guns for specialized purposes. 

Firearms are tools, and certain jobs take particular tools. For instance, you wouldn't use a hammer when you need a screwdriver, and you are not going to lug around a FAL rifle as your concealed carry weapon, nor would you use your .32 "mouse gun" to hunt big game. However, I notices some people carrying this to an extreme, wanting numerous guns for very specialized and specific tasks.

This is partly the result of gun manufacturers and gun media pushing the latest and greatest for particular and specific types of shooting or hunting. It is also historical in the prepping community. Mel Tappan, for instance, took the approach that you needed "defensive guns" versus "working guns," then subdividing each category down further and further, until he was recommending that clients have a dozen or more different models and calibers of firearms depending on whether they were putting down a horse, shooting a snake, defending against bandits, riding in a car, hiking in the woods, etc. In his book Surviving Doomsday, "Boston Tea Party" in the same vein recommends purchasing at least 4 handguns and at least 7 rifles (one of them exclusively for when traveling) and then writes:

Rifles are merely tools, and no one tool can do it all (although a scoped FAL or AR10 comes close...). Think of rifles like shoes: how many pairs of shoes do you have? You've got tennis shoes, running shoes, dress shoes, beach sandals, hiking boots, work boots, and house slippers. That's seven pairs of footwear. Now, does seven rifles sound so extreme?

Boston goes on to recommend at least three more rifles to get and lays on the guilt trip: "Will three rifles giving 95% be enough? Is that a gamble you can make in good conscience?"

I've written on this topic before in more detail, but this is the gist of my arguments as to why this approach is wrong:

First, and foremost, is the sheer expense of purchasing a large number of different types of firearms and their necessary ammunition, magazines, spare parts, and other accessories. While you will need defensive firearms, I believe you would be better off taking the money you would otherwise put into specialist firearms and use it instead to pay down debt, add to your savings account, purchase stockpiles of food or other equipment, or purchase extra ammunition or accessories for a basic battery of weapons. In short, minimize where possible and put the savings into other preparations.

Second, you will probably have to relocate or temporarily abandon your home or retreat at some point, and maybe more than once. You won't be able to carry a lot of weapons if you are on foot, you probably won't want to carry a large number in a vehicle, and you may not have time to hide a large arsenal. While looters and scavengers may appreciate your leaving a large arsenal of weapons, it probably won't do you any good.

Third, what you carry should be able to serve both as a working gun and a defensive weapon. If you are out hunting and suddenly come under fire, the other side is not going to give you a time-out while you go back to your shelter to exchange your hunting rifle for a combat rifle. Similarly, the need for fresh meat may require you to take game when out on a security patrol or reconnaissance.

Fourth, these recommendations generally assume that the prepper will be living in a remote area as homesteaders--running a working ranch or small farm, with gardens and orchards to boot, and trying to be self-sufficient in most every way. I would question the application of accumulating a large number of specialist weapons to even that small group of people, let lone the suburban or urban survivalist.

To sum up my thoughts on this matter, I want to share something simple, yet profound, that I read in the book High Country Hunting by Lloyd Bare. Bare noted the amazement and disapproval he generally encountered when other hunters learned that he used a .300 Winchester Magnum BAR for all of his big game hunting, be it deer, sheep, elk or bear. He explained:

In my gun cabinet you'll find one big game rifle (the BAR), one .22, one varmint rifle and one shotgun. In other words, I'm a hunter not a “gun nut” and I say that with kindest regards to gun experts and aficionados. Some of my best friends own a closet full of guns, one for every purpose. 

(High Country Hunting, p. 208). As preppers, we too should strive for simplicity. After all, you have to buy ammo for all this stuff, have to learn to shoot it well, and may have to evacuate with it.

Suffice it to say that this is a trap that can easily consume large amounts of money you could use for food storage or other preps.

Myth #3: Pre-1899 Firearms.

Some very prominent members of the prepping community have recommended buying pre-1899 weapons. The basic thrust of their argument is that because pre-1899 guns are not legally "firearms" under federal law, they fall outside federal jurisdiction and that this will protect you in the event of a gun confiscation. All of that is true to a point. The problem with the argument is that the "point" is a law that can easily be changed or ignored.

The selection of 1899 was an arbitrary choice. Congress could change the date or definition of firearms at any time. As an example of how broad the definition of "firearms" could be, you should look up your local ordinance prohibiting the discharge of a firearm within city limits and see how it defines "firearm." Most likely, it will be something vague that includes all firearms of any type or age, airguns, and probably bows and crossbows, etc. Congress could adopt just as broad of definition. 

From a more practical standpoint, imagine that the federal, state or local government has decided to confiscate firearms (e.g., as done in New Orleans post-Katrina). When the SWAT team (or whomever) shows up at your door, do you think they are going to distinguish between your Winchester lever action made in 1898 versus the one made in 1998? Do you think they are going to care one whit about your legal argument or justification on why they should take one and not the other? No. They will take them all, and let the court sort it out.

And what do you get when you buy a pre-1899 firearm anyway? Unless you can lay down the money for collector grade gun, you get an inferior firearm made of poorer steel and likely with substantial wear and tear, probably shooting an odd caliber that has been discontinued or hard to find. If you can find ammunition for the firearm, it likely won't be able to handle modern factory loads. You could have it converted to shoot another caliber, and send it to a gunsmith (who will dutifully write down the information in the records that the BATF requires him to keep) for the work, but that is an added expense on top of whatever outrageous price you paid for the weapon in the first place.

In short, the legal protection afforded by buying pre-1899 firearms is largely illusory. This is, again, a potential money pit that takes away from your other preps.

Myth #4: Your Primary Weapon is Your Rifle.

There are a significant number of preppers that seem to believe that when whatever earth-rendering disaster, financial collapse, or alien invasion occurs, we will suddenly be launched into a full-blown, "Mad Max" situation of kill-or-be-killed. They envision picking off bandits (or U.N. Peacekeepers) at hundreds of yards as they advance toward the particular prepper's retreat, all the while safely ensconced in a concealed location beyond the reach of the bandits' weapons. This is their focus for self-defense.

Even moving into the mainstream of the prepper movement, there is an emphasis on tactics and weapons for post-SHTF/without rule of law tactics and weapons. For instance, there was this post earlier today at the Survivalist Blog, stating:

... Distance ALWAYS equals two things. Time and safety. The time aspect of this is quite simple. The further away an enemy is from a target the longer it will take to achieve their objective. The further away from your loved ones that you can engage a threat provides reaction time for your and your loved ones to initiate whatever pre arranged defense protocols you have established. This in and of itself provides an added level of safety. If you are trying to protect your family, and they are going to be in the home, than the defense should be started as far away from the house as is possible. A good shot with an AR style rifle can ruin your day from five hundred meters in. I am aware that it may not be possible to establish a perimeter at that distance, but that would be best. I suggest possibly establishing a forward outpost at this distance if possible. A forward placed rifle and a few well placed shots may well be all it takes to persuade someone that its better to go somewhere else.

I'm not criticizing the author of that post because the tactics, and reliance on a rifle, are sound ... when considering warfare, insurgency, defending against raiders, or other situations where you expect to be in combat.

But when we prepare, we aren't only, or even necessarily, preparing for the end of civilization, but other disasters, big and small and in-between. We cannot overlook the here and now and focus on the post-SHTF to the exclusion of everyday preps. And this applies equally to weapons and our training. As Fernando "FerFal" Aguirre explains in his book, Surviving the Economic Collapse:

Rifles are terrific but they are not your main weapon. Again, here's the difference between a soldier or a SWAT member and you. 

A soldier carries his rifle because it's his job to do so while at war. SWAT guy has his rifle when doing his thing as well but both soldier guy and SWAT guy do NOT carry their rifles when they go pick up the kids at a friend's birthday party. And yes, the bad guys will attack you at that birthday party, or some other ridiculously unlikely circumstance. 

That's the way it is my friend. Understand that while I'm writing this tonight there are thousands staying awake in their beds thinking about possible plans and ideas to rob people like you and me.

(Surviving the Economic Collapse, p. 155). Massad Ayoob similarly wrote:

For you, it won't happen on a battlefield where the nearest Soviet soldier is 600 meters away behind a French hedgerow. For you, it will happen at point-blank range. Studies by the FBI show that the great majority of shoot-outs occur at a range of 7 yards or less, and more commonly at about 7 feet. And this is among police, whose statistics include running gunfights on the highway and long-distance gunfire exchanges with snipers and barricaded felons. 

The civilian, almost always, will fight his opponent face-to-face. In that close space he won't be able to bring a rifle or shotgun up before the attacker can take two steps forward and stab, club, or disarm him, or fire his own illegal gun. ...

(The Truth About Self Protection, p. 346). Ayoob also discusses the downsides to using a rifle at close quarters, such as the lack of mobility, the overpowering flash and stunning noise, and the need for two hands.

This is not to discount obtaining a rifle or shotgun. They have their place and, as I said earlier, I believe that this nation--the United States--will see another civil war. But I don't know when. It could be tomorrow, or 100 years from now. The burglar or mugger, though, is always with us.

Looking at it another way, consider this. A soldier or a SWAT officer, or similar, relies on his rifle as his primary weapon as he deploys on a mission or operation. If something goes wrong with his rifle, he transitions to his pistol. For you, at least while we still have rule of law, may not have any warning of danger, and you most likely will not be carrying a rifle--even if you typically have one as a "trunk gun." You will have your handgun first, and then if you have time and ability and need, will transition to your rifle. Exactly the opposite of the soldier.

Your primary weapon should be, where available, a good quality handgun, extra magazines (or speed loaders if you choose to use a revolver), a good supply of ammunition, and practice. Your rifle is secondary...at least for now. With that mind, if you are just starting out with putting together a battery of defensive weapons, my general suggestion is to first obtain a handgun and some ammo, and start practicing and learning to use it for self-defense. Then, as you expand your preps, look to get a defensive rifle.

And for those of you that already have a small battery of firearms, don't neglect the handgun. To paraphrase one commenter, focusing on the rifle while ignoring the handgun is like skipping the first aid kit because there is a hospital nearby. Until the SHTF, loss of rule of law, the handgun is your primary weapon.

Myth #5: Black Powder Firearms ... Just in Case.

This is one that I have never understood--the idea that you should add black powder firearms to your battery of defensive weapons. The general reasoning I've heard on this is that it is a back up for when you run out of ammunition for your modern weapons.

While a romantic notion, it is not a realistic one. Black powder firearms were a product of a functioning civilization and trading network. Making black powder takes materials that may not be available locally or in any great quantity, and can be dangerous. Percussion caps and primers require a fairly sophisticated manufacturing base. Even flints are not going to be available in all locations. If you are going to buy and store up caps and powder and ammunition, why not just purchase modern ammunition or components?

In addition, this is another firearm you have to learn to operate, repair, and provide for. Time and money that can be better spent elsewhere.

Final Comments

Just a few final comments. I am not arguing against collecting a wide variety of firearms, or shooting black powder firearms, if that is your "thing"--your hobby and passion. I'm just arguing against it as a survival preparation. Having a smaller number of weapons for which you have adequate stores of ammunition and, if necessary, magazines, and which you are good with, are going to be far more valuable than a safe full of different rifles for which you only have a few boxes of ammunition each.

In compiling this list, I am not attempting to downplay the role of self-defense and firearms for preppers. To me prepping is for both personal disasters, as well as regional and national disasters. At an individual level, we all face the threat of burglary, robbery, or worse. I also believe as part of my eschatology, based on statements made by past presidents of the LDS Church, that the United States will face civil war again, and possibly foreign invasion. Thus, I believe self-defense to be an important part of personal preparation.

Finally, find weapons you enjoy owning and shooting. These should be your go-to guns.

The Rural Economic Depression

The Economic Collapse blog has a good summary of various articles describing the economic depression in the Appalachian mountains in the United States, with the attendant poverty, government dependency, drug addiction, and crime.

H/t Woodpile Report

The Threat of Global Cooling

Michael Barone discusses the threat of global cooling at the Washington Examiner, noting that our current lack of solar activity mirrors that of the Maunder Minimum, or "Little Ice Age."

It has happened before. In his book Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century, historian Geoffrey Parker writes:

“The development of telescopes as astronomical instruments after 1609 enabled observers to track the number of sunspots with unprecedented accuracy. They noted a ‘maximum’ between 1612 and 1614, followed by a ‘minimum’ with virtually no spots in 1617 and 1618, and markedly weaker maxima in 1625-26 and 1637-9. And then, although astronomers around the world made observations on over 8,000 days between 1645 and 1715, they saw virtually no sunspots: The grand total of sunspots observed in those 70 years scarcely reached 100, fewer than currently [the book was published in 2013] appear in a single year. This striking evidence of absence suggests a reduction in solar energy received on earth.”

The result of the “Maunder Minimum” of sunspots was a so-called Little Ice Age, with significantly colder temperatures in the temperate zones, low crop yields to the point of famine and, Parker writes, “a greater frequency of severe weather events—such as flash floods, freak storms, prolonged drought and abnormal (as well as abnormally long) cold spells.”

Tactical Mistakes in "Lone Survivor"

The Captain's Journal has an interesting discussion (read the comments as well) about the tactical mistakes made by the SEAL team portrayed in the book and movie, Lone Survivor. It is a scathing critique of applying CQB thinking to general "fire and maneuver" infantry combat.

Peshawar is the World's Largest Reservoir of Polio

From Voice of America News:

The World Health Organization has declared Pakistan’s restive city of Peshawar the world’s “largest reservoir” of endemic poliovirus. The WHO officials fear Pakistanis could face tough international travel restrictions and visa policies unless transmission of the crippling disease is interrupted through urgent steps.

Researchers at WHO have determined that almost every polio case surfacing in the country during 2013 could be linked genetically to the strains of the virus prevalent in Peshawar.

They added that all the samples collected from various locations of the northwestern city have shown presence of the highly contagious wild poliovirus strain.

WHO’s emergency coordinator for polio eradication in Pakistan, Elias Durry, said local authorities need to take urgent action to strengthen vaccination campaigns to reverse the disturbing trend. He says the situation in Peshawar not only threatens gains the country has made against the crippling disease over the years, but has the potential to undermine global eradication efforts.

“Unless the polio eradication program in Pakistan is able to curtail the transmission in Peshawar, the expansion of the viruses to other places will not stop. So, it is critical that Peshawar, the way it is behaving now, really be able to find ways of interrupting these transmissions that have been consistent throughout the years,” said Durry.

 Perhaps the Taliban should stop killing the aid workers that administer polio vaccinations.

Update to Links List

I've added some additional links to the side-bar over the last several weeks. If you haven't looked through it for a while, you may want to go through and see if something catches your interest.

How to Make Thermite

U.S. Crow has a short article on making thermite devices. After explaining some of its uses and limitations, the author notes a few basic safety issues:

Thermite can not be used over recently ignited piles of thermite slag (waste matter separated from metals during the melting of ore), this will cause an accidental ignition and will cause severe burns and eye-damage.

TH3 can not be mixed by intention or fault with water. This will create a steam explosion and cause fragmentary harm to surrounding personnel. In addition, thermite should be handled with care to prevent accidental abrasion-caused ignition. All safety precautions during the production of a TG must be strictly adhered to.

Based on a Mythbusters episode on thermite and ice, it is dangerous to set thermite off on top of blocks of ice because it can cause an explosion.

As for the making, the article states:

The first thing you’ll need is aluminum powder, you can buy this from Amazon. You can make aluminum powder by grinding up soda cans and other aluminum items, but that could cause impurities in your mixture.

Now you need rust or iron oxide, you can buy this on Amazon or at any hardware store in the paint department. You can make iron oxide post-disaster by putting steel wool in a jar in water and covering it with more wool. Use a magnet to prevent the steel wool from floating to the surface. Now, add 5 tbsp of bleach and 5 tbsp vinegar. A day later place the steel wool paste in a coffee filter and let stand for eight hours. This is iron oxide.

The fundamental mixture ratio for thermite is 3 parts iron oxide 2 parts aluminum powder. Mix your 3:2 with 2 parts plaster of paris. Mix the three composite materials thoroughly. A well mixed composite will have uniform coloring. Add just over the amount of water required for the plaster of paris and mix thoroughly.

Once mixed you have a little less than ten minutes to pour your liquid thermite into the canister. Before pouring the mixture line canister with magnesium ribbon. You can also use thermite igniter fuses. Now fill the canister with the thermite. Set the canister in a safe place and allow time for the composite to harden. Larger canisters take a longer time to harden.

Additional thermite method: Another improvised method for thermite development with a low incendiary yield would be an 8:3 thermite mixture kneaded with 4 parts clay, and with a magnesium ribbon for ignition.

The author has links for purchasing specific products from Amazon on his page. He then goes on to describe the ingredients for making Thermite TH3, which has a lower ignition temperature, but apparently better suited for destroying materials.

Vigilantes, Mexican Police and the Cartels

From Christian Science Monitor's Frontier Markets:

“I have spoken to numerous priests, and all of them say that it’s exaggerated to suggest the defense groups are clean, but it’s also unfair to say they’re puppets of other cartels,” our correspondent says.


Meanwhile, the Catholic leaders also question the reasoning for the government’s forceful resolve to disarm the vigilantes, who have wrested control of entire towns from the cartel and restored businesses and farms to their rightful owners. ...


“Catholic bishops here say that this leaves the suspicion that these drug gangs are being protected by the government,” adds our correspondent. “The government appears duplicitous.”


... The Nueva Italia townspeople agreed to form a committee that would equip and feed the vigilante defense forces against the government. Their defiance is understandable; after all, in less than one year, the vigilantes have accomplished what the federal government failed to achieve after more than seven years and 100,000 deaths: reclaim the land from drug cartels. Why should the vigilantes be forced to sacrifice those gains?


But hidden in the fog are alliances and pacts between numerous gangs and rebels and government entities. All that’s clear is that the vigilantes won’t lay down their arms without a protracted struggle, says our correspondent.


“Michoacán is very symbolic of the Mexican crackdown on organized crime,” he says. “It was the first place the federal government sent troops in December 2006 because this is where La Familia, the predecessor of Knights of Templar, started.


“You have to take a long view of this,” he adds. “It’s been seven years since then. Things haven’t changed. So there is some skepticism why it would change now.”

The government seeks to disarm the vigilantes because it fears them more than the cartels.

These events provide a perfect example, however, where there is a localized breakdown of the rule of law. Imagine how much more effective the vigilantes would be with decent weapons and some training.

Prepper Myths

The Survivalist Blog recently had a couple articles addressing common prepper myths: the golden horde, without rule of law, shoot first, bugging out to the woods, the safety of the rural retreat, and harvesting wild game for sustenance.

The golden horde is the idea that people will flee from the cities into the countryside to seek food and safety. As the author notes, history tends to show that when countries experience significant economic problems, people actually head to the cities to try and find work. However, I would note that the source of the "golden horde" strategy was with the early survivalist movement that was concerned about nuclear war. Under that scenario, the idea of the "golden horde" has some bases in reality: if there was warning of a nuclear attack, people would be warned to evacuate; and if there had been a widespread nuclear strike, the cities would not offer refuge for survivors. However, on the whole, history does not support the idea of a golden horde. Even when people have fled cities for refuge (such as to avoid bombing during WWII, or to flee outbreaks of the plague), those that have fled have tended to head to known places of refuge, such as to live with relatives. Most people stayed in place because where would they go?

Without rule of law and shoot first assumes a complete breakdown of government and social order. There are plenty of examples of this occurring in Europe in the wake of devastating warfare, such as in the aftermath of the 30-years war and, very briefly, following the end of World War II. It would take a serious war, with the concomitant destruction of travel, freight and communication infrastructure, to produce a widespread WROL situation. The author of the article at Survivalist Blog argues that even if there was a period of WROL, it would be localized and temporary. Likely so, but WROL doesn't necessarily have to apply to everyone--what if the law turned its back on certain members of a community or society? History is replete with populations that lived at peace, and suddenly erupted into ethnic or religious violence, or other pogroms.

Bugging out to the woods is generally laughable ... unless you were the Bielski brothers trying to save fellow Jews from the Nazi death camps.Still, in most situations, it would be unrealistic. And, even in the case of the Bielski's, the refugees still had to "liberate" food from peasant farmers. They did not survive on the "bounty" of the forest.