This is a very interesting premise, but the episodes get tiresome as the format is increasingly repetitive. Also, some really obvious mistakes that the preppers make are sometimes ignored: shelves full of glass bottles at eye level (no lip on shelves) in preparation for a major earthquake? Also, the one issue preparation (climate change, economic collapse, Yellowstone blowing up, etc.) seems tunnel-visioned, but apparently the shows' writers need that statement as a justification for their script. The fact is that most of the preppers and the needed preparations that each makes are very much the same in the outcomes they're working toward.
Perhaps for that reason, many of the practices that bloggers like Luther and Nygaard describe as prepping seem to blend into the world of homesteading, a brand of self-reliance more closely associated with living off the land. According to Gaye Levy, the Arizona-based writer behind the blog Strategic Living and the founder of Backdoor Survival, one of the longest-running woman-run sites in the space, the two aren’t exactly the same thing. “I think prepping is pretty clear: You’re preparing for a disruptive event that’s gonna turn your day-to-day world upside down. Homesteaders typically will have a plot of land. They attempt to grow their own food, they raise farm animals, and that is their job.”
Good afternoon all, I hope some of you are enjoying this Rivalry College Football Saturday. Anyway, I am about to conduct some bulk ammo accuracy testing of Federal American Eagle .223 55 grain, XM-193, and XM-855 (I do not like putting steel case through my rifles not designed for it). Testing will be done through a Ruger AR556 (16.1" barrel, 1:8 twist) with a Leupold 1.5-4x scope. I will run tests of 50 rounds of each ammo, on 3 different occasions to vary temperature and atmospheric conditions at 100 yards starting with a different ammo first on each different occasion so a different ammo type has the cold barrel advantage. Anyway, to anyone who is interested, I will be posting the results after each trial.
Even if the world goes permanently off-grid, you can maintain a modicum of civilization by making tea or a boiled egg, or even that beverage that once kept everything going, coffee. It also makes questionable water safer to drink. Constructed like a Thermos with a heavy duty glass vacuum tube inside, it can heat 16 ounces of water to a rolling boil in 20-49 minutes any time there is direct sunlight, all while the outside remains safe to touch.
I would agree that the moral ground of choosing to not have a firearm is great for some people. I have a family and am prepared for our needs with supplies and learned skills and would not expect to need assistance of others. I am currently working on extra supplies that I might be able to distribute to others in need. I like to help others and do not see the world as an evil place. Unfortunately with a catastrophic event law enforcement is often not available. History and current events in less “civilized” areas has proven that without law then anarchy and predatory animals are often unleashed. I feel that it is my moral obligation to protect my family. If I took the stance that I would go firearm free for moral reasons then I don’t think that I could live with myself if I was powerless to stop thugs from overpowering me then stealing our hard earned supplies necessary for our survival and then brutalizing my wife and young daughter when I might have been able to stop it with force. If accepting the risk of being less able to protect your family is acceptable to you and your family for moral reasons then god bless you and I support your decision. Could I live with the “stain” on my soul for protecting my family from predatory animals using force? Yup. How many “stains” could I tolerate….depends on how many predators and how many bullets I have. I do not live in fear and do not think that my commitment to my family protection as a husband and father makes me psychotic, paranoid, pathetic, a coward or a sociopath and feel slighted at the suggestion otherwise in your post. I would say that each of us must make the moral decision themselves about use of firearms for protection. I don’t judge others decisions and wouldn’t expect others to judge mine. I think I am a realist. A protective firearm can be like a fire extinguisher- you don’t have one because you want to use it or expect a problem but stuff happens.
This portable water filter and purification system lets thirsty doomsday survivors drink water found anywhere. Fill up the bottle at a stream, press for 15 seconds, and proceed with hydration. The water will be clear of viruses, bacteria, protozoa, particulates, chemicals, and heavy metals. One filter is good for 300 uses. After that, if you haven’t stockpiled them, you’re on your own.
For my stockpile, I use several Aqua-Tainers with categorical labels marked on them for drinking water, hygiene water (dishes and showering), toilet water and garden water. My priority is obviously drinking water, but any dishwater I have I reuse as toilet water. While it might seem overkill, keeping an eye on your stockpiles is good practice to get an idea of how much your daily consumption rate is, and where you can find ways to re-use or use less water.
I do understand, out of my friends and family I’m the most prepared. I constantly go out to the middle of nowhere and put my skills to the test. Just for argument sake, but what if someone is more equipped than you? What if someone else is better prepared ie: more knowledgeable, more practical experience, time in the field putting skills to use than all others in your group? What then, does it mean that you would sideline someone more equipped mentally than you and all others to lead over your own pride?, Or would you go against what you have said and actually not jeopardize your groups well being and let the more experienced person led. To give your group the best possible chance of survival, or would you possibly condemn your loved ones and friends to a fate of death or even worse over your pride?
Preparing for catastrophic or short range survival is extremely personal and most of us keep it tight to our chest. I think PowderKeg says it best – Invisible and then Nuttus who knows that not all of us are the same skill or wherewithal stage, yet as a TEAM we shore up each others weaknesses, learn off each others strengths and it is a continual building process going forward.
Staying at home might not be an option for long, especially in an urban area with lots of mouths to feed and dwindling supplies. A bunker is ideal, and at the very least should be partly belowground, fortified and well-provisioned. Barring that, a cave or a cabin somewhere away from populated areas will do. As a modicum of reduced exposure, a small, foldable tent or plastic tarp might not be a bad investment.