"End of the world"/SHTF Ammo: What would you buy?

["End of the world"/SHTF Ammo: What would you buy?]

You guys have any suggestions for a .22lr Rifle?

 

Marlin 795.  

 

Significantly better rifle than the Ruger 10/22, more accurate out of the box, with advantages the 10/22 doesn't have (like an infinitely better trigger and LBHO), and $50 or so cheaper to boot.

 

realistically... if a SHTF scenario really happened... wouldn't the vast majority of us be on the road?  how much ammo could you possibly take with you along with other necessities with your families? 

 

Yeah, the SHTF conversation is typically infantile and silly, the adult male version of play pretend.

 

I'm all for being prepared for a terrible emergency, but the people who plan on "Bugging out" and yet have 1,384,474 rounds of various ammunition in their basement, as if they can take even a small percentage of that with them are delusional.....or worse.

[new range in Hunterdon County.Flemington]

A shooting range run by two pharmaceutical executives....hmmmm.

 

 

 

Hey!   As someone who works in the pharma industry, I should take offense to that!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I dont.

 

 

My kingdom for a 500 yard range though.

[Arguments for Gun Control]

"You dont need _______ to hunt with"

[The Star-Ledger advocates mandatory confiscation of New Jersey guns]

Anyone who is a NJ gun owner and doesn't immediately cancel their Star-Ledger subscription after this is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.  

 

And it should be lost on no one that the spineless coward who authored this anti-American drivel didn't choose to put his or her name to it, but rather chose to hide behind the banner of the "Star-Ledger Editorial Board".

[The Star-Ledger advocates mandatory confiscation of New Jersey guns]

What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
on September 19, 2014 at 6:30 PM

 

 

 

There's little harm in the bill our state Assembly just passed, to expand gun buyback programs across New Jersey. It comes at no cost to the taxpayers. It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations.  And who knows? It may even do some good. Having fewer guns lying around could mean they won't end up in the hands of a curious child, abusive spouse or suicidal person. Having a gun at home makes it three times more likely that you'll be murdered by a family member or intimate partner, or successfully attempt suicide.

But let's not kid ourselves: Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don't have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates. They don't directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven't overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state?

The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference, but that Americans would never accept: Mandatory gun buybacks. That's what Australia did, after its own version of Newtown.

Following a mass shooting in Tasmania that left 35 dead, Austrialia banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, and required all the newly banned weapons to be bought back by the government. This cut the number of gun-owning households by as much as half.

The mandatory buybacks were also accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registering firearms. Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun. We understand this is not going to happen. Neither American courts nor most of the public would support it. As a nation we remain wedded to the delusion that gun ownership stops crime.

But guess what? It worked in Australia. The gun homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the suicide rate fell 65 percent. It virtually eliminated mass shootings. And there was no corresponding increase in homicides or suicides that didn't involve firearms. In other words, people weren't just switching to other methods of violence -- when guns weren't as easily available, they weren't acting on these impulses at all.

So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over "gun confiscation," don't expect it to make much difference.

 

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/09/nj_gun_buyback_programs.html