TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:Teach a man to fish...

My elderly neighbor (lady) just took herself out to the range and took a class and some firing-time. She called me over and showed off her 25-yard paper target with 80% of the shots in the black and the rest at 12 o'clock high. Incredible shooting for a life-long non-shooter.
Now she wants to buy a handgun.

Until she gets her gun she can count on me to provide aid in the event of a catastrophic scenario.

This, and.....

Dave2 wrote:I'd hand out my Mosin Nagant, Mauser, and SKS (in that order) to unarmed people who I thought "deserved" them, with the understanding that they'd be returned after said people were able to get their own guns (or if I ran out of ammo for my others). Other than that, though, I don't have enough guns to arm even a full family, let alone a neighborhood.

.....this I think are kind of where I fall on this idea.....

.....along with a smidgeon of this:

Middle Age Russ wrote:If TEOTWAWKI occurs, I would be happy to host a limited number of folks, as long as they bring something to party -- i.e. material things like guns and ammo, non-perishable foodstufs, or certain specialized skillsets/knowledge. As for arming the neighbors, charity begins at home. Until everyone in my home has a full compliment of pistols and long arms, each, with an acceptable supply of rounds for each arm, all sharing will be within the immediate family.

But, I also have to highlight this one:

jmra wrote:Each of the firearms I have added to the family collection serve a specific purpose much like the different clubs in a golfers bag. To start handing out my "clubs" might mean that when I need to put, I'm left holding a driver.

The reason I highlight it is because this is the current state of my own collection. None of my long guns are "spares." Each one was picked with a specific purpose in mind. I do have a couple of pistols I could dispense with to hand out, but they were NOT cheap guns. One is a .44 magnum and the other is a .357 magnum, and they are not exactly "beginner" guns. I have a significant investment in them, and I'm not likely to consider them as "give-aways." On the other hand, I'm not averse to the idea of picking up 3 or 4 "junk" (meaning old, used, inexpensive, but serviceable) revolvers in a common caliber at gunshows—buying them over a period of time so that it isn't a sudden major expense. I would be willing to use these guns to make up 3 or 4 mini-bugin kits for those that deserve them. I'd be willing to include a 50 round box of cheap ammo, a couple of water bottles, a can of chili and a small bag of rice.....or something like that. But I wouldn't give them to just anybody. It would have to be somebody deserving, and that would be defined by some kind of overt indication that they were serious about taking responsibility for their survival going forward. And like Middle Age Russ said, it would have to be someone who brought something to the party.

But that said, I would likely never help the neighbor across the street. He makes more money than I do and he has a regular income. When he makes statements like his saying that he's coming over to my house when it hits the fan, it irritates me no end that he thinks that this type of preparedness is necessary, but he doesn't have to spend his money on it, because he presumes upon me and mine. In other words, although he's not a democrat, he acts like one.....like he is saying "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too." If TEOTWAWKI ever comes, he's going to be cold, hungry, and unarmed, because I'm refusing to be his enabler. I'm not even sure that I'd sell him one of my "give-away" kits at a 1000% profit, because he's not worthy, and paper money won't have any value then. He won't have anything of value to pay with. An absolute grasshopper.

Anyway, I find that my thoughts are still evolving, and maaaaaaybe when I have my own preparations built up to where I am satisfied with them, I'll feel more able to be generous. Maybe. But until then, it's going to be hard cheese for my short-sighted neighbors.

Equin, Bracken references Aguirre's book in his article. I plan to buy a copy. Also he recommends "The Black Swan: Second Edition: The Impact of the Highly Improbable Fragility" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, of which I just downloaded a Kindle copy from Amazon. The Black Swan events are the ones we (the editorial "we") never expect or seem to be able to predict will happen, so we never prepare for them. The great failing of human nature is the expectation that the universe is a well ordered place where there is no chaos, when in fact, chaos is all there is. (I don't believe this is inconsistent with the idea that there is a God in control of the chaos, but merely that from our limited perspective, there is no discernible pattern to future events that can be distinguished as separate from the chaos.) Since we cannot discern predictable patterns from the chaos, it behooves us to be prepared for the unexpected.

I guess that Bracken's point in this essay is that the idea of charity aside, being in a position to arm your neighbor is just plain smart. You still get to choose to whom you will release some of your resources, or even whether or not you will release those resources, but at least you're in the position to do so if it comes to that.

I'm a fan of Matthew Bracken's writing. For those of you who don't know who he is, Bracken is the author of the fairly well regarded "Enemies, Foreign and Domestic" trilogy, and other novels of a possible future America. He is also a retired SEAL and prepping advocate among other things. He has written a provocative article about whether we, as prepared gun owners, might have some kind of "social obligation," as it were, to be able to arm our neighbors in the event of the kind of catastrophe resulting in a total social breakdown.

I have very mixed feelings about this. I have heard it said by more of my friends, including friends from church, business associates, and neighbors who are themselves conservatives in favor of gun rights but who don't necessarily have any of their own, "Boy, TAM, if TEOTWAWKI ever comes, I'm heading over to your house." ........to which my stock answer is "Yeah, when monkeys fly outta my butt......" and then I lecture them: "Look, if you think this stuff is important, then shame on you for not making the effort yourself. It is YOUR obligation as an adult to be ready to protect your family. It is not MY obligation, and I did not invest MY money into this stuff so that you wouldn't have to. Gee, maybe next time I need a car, I'll just come over to your house....."

My neighbor across the street has said this stuff to me, and I've given him the same answer: "Gary, I love you, but it is YOUR job to protect your family, not MINE. Now cowboy up and go buy a gun, and I'll be happy to help you pick one out and teach you to shoot it. But my guns are NOT your guns."

Now, Matthew Bracken tries to make the case that for those of us who have made that effort and who are concerned about the safety of our neighborhoods in such a collapse, that maybe we do have a social obligation to be prepared to arm our neighbors if it comes to that. He does NOT say that we need to go buy a dozen M4 carbines (unless you want to ) for a neighborhood armory, and neither does he say that you're a bad person if you don't prepare to arm your neighbors. He also acknowledges that we are neither likely to want to lend out our expensive carbines and bolt rifles and collectable 1911s, etc., nor is it reasonable for someone who chooses to be unarmed themselves to be critical of someone who doesn't want to loan out their expensive investment. But, he DOES suggest that it might not be a bad idea to scarf up a few cheap, used revolvers in a common caliber like .38 special or .357, to be used as weapons that can be handed out to a neighbor in need. He suggests revolvers because they are dirt simple and you can teach someone the fundamentals of safety and how to operate one in 15 minutes and such a gun won't break the bank if you never see it again. To me that evokes images of some old S&W police turn-ins or something like that which can be had for not too much money.

Here is the link to his article: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.c ... -neighbor/

Matthew Bracken wrote:Most of the readers of this column probably don’t need to be convinced of the wisdom of owning and practicing with firearms. You may even believe that you already possess all of the guns you need, whether a .38 caliber revolver in your bedside table or a small battery of handguns, shotguns and rifles in your closet or gun safe. You may even own one or more of those liberally despised so-called assault rifles. In any of these cases you may think you don’t need to consider any more gun purchases.

There is, however, one reason to purchase at least a few more weapons: to arm thy neighbors. I can hear you saying, “What is Bracken talking about? If that foolish grasshopper of a neighbor didn’t bother about his security when guns were readily available, why should I worry about him now? Besides, he may even be an anti-gun liberal, so the hell with him!”

This reasoning is short-sighted on several levels.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting concept. For my own part, I'm not sure I agree simply because I hear too many times from otherwise rational people about how they seem to expect or hope that I made my investment for their benefit so that they don't have to. But on the other hand, I believe strongly in the power of neighborhood and the necessity of an armed population, and I'd rather have a community organizer who was more interested in empowering people to protect themselves, than in disseminating commie pinko manure. And, I agree with Bracken on the necessity to be the one willing to stand up for the widows and orphans.

What do you guys think?