Why Do Preppers Have Guns? Why Do They Have So Many?
Being a prepper often attracts unfair negative media attention.
Perhaps one of the reasons that the concept of preparing for disasters attracts so much automatic negativity is because non-preppers feel a semi-conscious mix of guilt and envy at seeing other people prudently preparing for emergencies.
But rather than admit this truth, non-preppers seek ways to sneer at and denigrate their more prudent fellow citizens, and one thing which they love to attack is the fact that the preparations many people undertake involve – along with hundreds/thousands of other things – purchasing a number of firearms and a quantity of ammunition.
Why do preppers usually own guns (and sometimes what seems like a ridiculous number of them)? Are they all gun freaks? Or is there a more logical reason?
We suggest there are two reasons why preppers have guns. The first is to secure food by hunting, and the second is self-defense.
If one is in some sort of circumstance where there is no food coming in to the supermarkets, what does one do? One does one of three things.
The first option is the least appealing – one simply starves. And – yes, it is true one doesn’t need any firearms in such a case. To be blunt, this is the option that, like it or not, non-preppers risk if there is a major disruption to our food supply (although see the third option below for their other alternative).
The second option is the most positive – one goes out hunting and fishing. For sure, fishing doesn’t require a gun, and again, for sure, growing fruit and vegetables doesn’t require a gun either, but raising fruit and vegetables is not something that you can instantly start any time you wish, and start harvesting food the very next day. Most crops are seasonal, and some trees take years to mature. Getting fruit and vegetables might take a year or more to come on-stream.
Although fishing and growing crops does not require any firearms, hunting does. So, people who are anticipating the possibility of running out of food, or who wish to augment and extend the supplies they have stored, need firearms – and ammunition for their guns – to go hunting.
Which brings us to the third option people have when they find themselves without food. This is one that, alas, many people will have no choice but to adopt. If they don’t have food, and if they have no way to hunt or otherwise gather food, and if they don’t want to just sit down and die, what will they have to do?
Yes, they’ll attempt to take food from other people. And, in fairness, there’s no time for morality when a person’s life is on the line, is there, so one can understand why they would do this. Not only can one understand why people would do this, prudent people will also anticipate such occurrences and plan and prepare for them.
Which puts the people who prudently prepared for food shortages in a difficult position. They probably barely have enough food for themselves – why should they have to share their food with the same people who formerly would jeer and sneer at them, and who refused to similarly stock up and prepare for future problems? This question is even more relevant and hard to answer if, by sharing their food, they then risk their own ability to survive in the process.
Even in cases where people aren’t risking death by starvation and attempting to beg or take food by force, other ugly encounters are likely to arise. In any type of social disruption, looters quickly appear and seek to pillage and destroy property.
Preppers become prime targets for looters as well as for starving people seeking food wherever they can find it.
And – guess what. Most preppers probably don’t want to be victimized and to passively allow all their time, effort, energy and money invested in their preparations be destroyed or stolen from them.
So – why do preppers have guns? Simple. For survival – both in the form of hunting for food, and in the form of self-defense.
How Many Guns Are Enough
If you are preparing for such challenges yourself, you will quickly determine that you need to have more than one gun. You need two rifles for hunting – a small-caliber rifle for small game and varmints, and a larger caliber one for full size animals such as deer. You also might want a shotgun for ducks and other birds, and a pistol for convenient ever-present self-defense. Your shotgun and your larger caliber rifle would also be used for self-defense purposes too.
So that is four guns for one person, as a minimum – and if you’re preparing for an extended period of emergency, you might want to double up in case a gun fails and needs to be replaced. So now we are looking at eight firearms for one person, and remember this is still a minimum quantity (even though it sounds like a huge number to some people).
That sure sounds like a lot, until you understand the reasoning behind it. Guns are tools, with different guns being better for some tasks than others. For a comparison, how many knives do you have in your kitchen? All knives cut, just like all guns shoot. But different knives are better or not so good for different tasks, so a professional cook typically has a ‘set’ of many different knives, from tiny boning knives up to huge meat cleavers. Plus he has a few old knives that still stay in the drawer, even though they are no longer used, and he probably has a couple of other knives he bought but never uses because they weren’t as good as he thought they might be.
It is the same with guns – indeed, it is safer to have multiple guns, because then you can best select the most appropriate gun for each task and use it most appropriately.
So, if one person has eight guns (four main guns and four spares), how many for two people? Two people would want to have eight guns plus maybe just one (rather than two) sets of four spares – 12 guns for two people. Three people might call for 16 guns, and so on. Happily there is no law against owning multiple firearms and no restriction on how many guns anyone can own, so why not get as many as are prudently needed for a range of different future tasks.
Next of course is the question of ammunition. Ammunition is small and compact so doesn’t take up much storage space, and lasts a long time (definitely in excess of ten years, usually in excess of twenty years if stored reasonably well) and is reasonably inexpensive.
Ammunition is also an excellent trading good. If two people meet during an emergency, they might decide to swap things that they each respectively either have spares of and need some of in return, and ammunition in common calibers is definitely something that has huge value as a trading item in troubled times. So how much to store?
That is one of the big questions preppers have to confront with everything they choose to stock up on, of course. In the case of ammunition, one single bullet might represent the ability to fell a deer, providing enough food for everyone present for a week, or to save a life in a confrontation, and by the same token, the lack of a bullet might mean starving or being overrun and subjugated by lawless marauding hordes of looters.
Each of the four guns will require a different caliber of ammunition, and within that caliber, there will be a range of different bullet shapes, weights, and styles.
It seems prudent to lay in a stock of some thousands of rounds of ammunition accordingly, in a mix of the four different calibers, and with a range of different bullet types (and shot shell types). Ammunition isn’t a large cost item, doesn’t take up too much space, won’t need to be thrown away unused due to short storage life, and is a key component of assuring the ongoing safety and survival of the group of people owning it.
Are Too Many Guns Dangerous or Threatening?
The media love to talk about ‘survivalists’ having huge caches of weapons and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition as if this implies some degree of crazed intent on the part of the person owning the guns and ammo.
There is an unspoken implication that a person with two guns is twice as dangerous as a person with one, and that a person with ten guns is ten times as dangerous. The same strange math is applied to ammunition – a person with 1000 rounds of ammo is ‘obviously’ more dangerous than a person with 500 rounds, and a person with 5,000 rounds is even more dangerous again.
This is nonsense. The reality is simple :
A person can only shoot one gun at a time, and the gun they are using can only shoot one bullet at a time.
Having two or ten guns doesn’t make a person any more dangerous than having only one gun. If it did, our professional soldiers would be equipped with dozens of guns. Professional soldiers only have one or sometimes two guns (ie rifle and pistol); the same is true of most police officers too. If owning more guns did truly make a person more dangerous, maybe there would be laws against it.
It is the same as cars and petrol, perhaps. A person can only drive one car at a time, and the one car he is driving only goes at a certain speed with a certain amount of power, no matter if the tank is full of gas or nearly empty.
While guns hopefully and happily play a small part of our ordinary day to day lives, if there should be a disruption to our lives and the society in which we live, we may need to return to the ways of our forefathers and rely on guns more than we need to at present.
Prudent people, preparing for possible problems in the future, will include guns in their preparations both for the ability to hunt food and for prudent self-protection.
If you’re not a prepper, you have nothing to fear from preppers with guns. They won’t need to use them against you, because you, as a non-prepper, by definition, will have nothing they want or need. You should instead be concerned about other non-preppers with weapons, who might believe you have something they want or need, whether it be something essential for survival such as food and shelter, or something as irrelevant as a big screen television.