-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Really need a firearm for survival?
- Thread starter jackknife
- Start date
Need a firearm for survival? The answer is so obvious it actually physically hurts my head to say it, even though the pain is very minor. 
Of course you do not need one. If you did, you wouldn't be where you are today, because you would have never been born. Humankind didn't appear into the world with firearms in hand. Man survived well enough without them. And today? No, still don't need one. Obviously, in some situations you may benefit to varying degrees from one, but most of the time, they'll be dead weight. Then again, in about a single case out of a thousand, having that gun may end up saving your life, so why not carry one if you don't mind the weight. Me? I can't be bothered, especially not with Finnish legislation being what it is.
Of course you do not need one. If you did, you wouldn't be where you are today, because you would have never been born. Humankind didn't appear into the world with firearms in hand. Man survived well enough without them. And today? No, still don't need one. Obviously, in some situations you may benefit to varying degrees from one, but most of the time, they'll be dead weight. Then again, in about a single case out of a thousand, having that gun may end up saving your life, so why not carry one if you don't mind the weight. Me? I can't be bothered, especially not with Finnish legislation being what it is.At that time!
But Man would NEVER have survived without weapons of the time, both for hunting, and self defense. :thumbup:
L.W.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,035
Also, let's look at the premise of "need". If we base "need" on what is likely to be used, we wouldn't carry most of the stuff we do.
I can honestly say I've never used more than a large band-aid and some neosporin from my FAK. Yet, I still carry a SAM splint, heatsheet, some kerlix, med tape, etc. Because IF I need it, I REALLY need it.
I can usually go without bringing food, as most of my woods time is out in the morning, in at dusk. Yet I carry food -- IN CASE of that unexpected overnighter. Also means I really don't usually need my tarp, or a ground sheet, paracord, etc. yet they get carried. Most here DO carry the "basic 5" in some way, shape or form, and probably never use most of the stuff on their average hike. But it's worth the "dead weight".
Now can we "survive" just as well today with a bow or spear? Against animals? Sure. Spearhunting those wild boar can be a real thrill. Not so much when you run up against a meth cooker, or just plain whacko predator type with a gun. We carry handguns and rifles because they are the "spears and bows" of our day.
I can honestly say I've never used more than a large band-aid and some neosporin from my FAK. Yet, I still carry a SAM splint, heatsheet, some kerlix, med tape, etc. Because IF I need it, I REALLY need it.
I can usually go without bringing food, as most of my woods time is out in the morning, in at dusk. Yet I carry food -- IN CASE of that unexpected overnighter. Also means I really don't usually need my tarp, or a ground sheet, paracord, etc. yet they get carried. Most here DO carry the "basic 5" in some way, shape or form, and probably never use most of the stuff on their average hike. But it's worth the "dead weight".
If you're willing to accept 40 as "old age", sure. Also remember that spears, knives, hatchets and bows were all the other guys had as well. If you look at primitive man, he typically carried a knife, soem sort of hatchet or hand axe, and a spear or a bow. Archaeology bears this out. So even then, the best projectile weapons of the time were deemed worthwhile.
Now can we "survive" just as well today with a bow or spear? Against animals? Sure. Spearhunting those wild boar can be a real thrill. Not so much when you run up against a meth cooker, or just plain whacko predator type with a gun. We carry handguns and rifles because they are the "spears and bows" of our day.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 3,291
Yup, they had their tools and we have ours to help balance out the odds a bit. America is a big, wild place where the top predators do not fear the average hiker or biker, camper or survivalist type. In all the years that man has been trying to civilize himself, not much has changed. They still kill, to get what the other guy has and the other guy needs to be able to protect himself.
I guess the real question here is, wheter or not one thinks meeting whacko human predators in the woods is a realistic risk. It definately is in some parts of the world, and everybody needs to be aware of his surroundings of course. For example, in some parts of South-America getting robbed up in the mountains is without a doubt a real risk that need's to be dealt with. On the other hand being "isolated" from civilization is a scary experience to begin with for some. Maybe a firearm will give them some confidence, or a feeling of safety. Or, to some a firearm might be an essential part of being outdoors in the first place. For example, as a kid I spent tens of hours alone in the woods shooting spruce cones with my .22 rifle.
I'm just glad that I don't feel a need to carry one. After all, a gun will only protect you so far. I love hiking alone, but if I'd have to be afraid of crazy meth-heads while being miles from the nearest road, I wouldn't feel comfortable even if I had an assault rifle. I'd still have to sleep, and a shitload of openly carried firearms might well motivate some crackhead to crack my head with a rock while I'm asleep. So, I think my trusty hiking staff will remain my "primary weapon"
It has dispatched the occasional adder's from my path so far.
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
It is comforting that when I travel to Finland I will only need my trusty toothpick to when I venture into the woods... as no harm could possibly befall me.
I can only hope that Citizens of the USA are not so easily neutered and complacent. Fear the government that fears you bearing arms.
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
I guess the real question here is, wheter or not one thinks meeting whacko human predators in the woods is a realistic risk. It definately is in some parts of the world, and everybody needs to be aware of his surroundings of course. For example, in some parts of South-America getting robbed up in the mountains is without a doubt a real risk that need's to be dealt with. On the other hand being "isolated" from civilization is a scary experience to begin with for some. Maybe a firearm will give them some confidence, or a feeling of safety. Or, to some a firearm might be an essential part of being outdoors in the first place. For example, as a kid I spent tens of hours alone in the woods shooting spruce cones with my .22 rifle.
I'm just glad that I don't feel a need to carry one. After all, a gun will only protect you so far. I love hiking alone, but if I'd have to be afraid of crazy meth-heads while being miles from the nearest road, I wouldn't feel comfortable even if I had an assault rifle. I'd still have to sleep, and a shitload of openly carried firearms might well motivate some crackhead to crack my head with a rock while I'm asleep. So, I think my trusty hiking staff will remain my "primary weapon"
Good luck with your hiking staff in these parts lil' John.
Hahahaa... look... obviously we have different experiences. We live in different parts of the world. I wonder what someone from S. Africa would have to say about hiking unarmed???
The point is... you guys in Finland have different needs than we have in the USA. It is interesting to hear learn how different your needs are than ours.
It is comforting that when I travel to Finland I will only need my trusty toothpick to when I venture into the woods... as no harm could possibly befall me.
I can only hope that Citizens of the USA are not so easily neutered and complacent. Fear the government that fears you bearing arms.
Heh, bring a puukko. You can carve a toothpick with it, and many other handy items. No but honestly, if you do travel to Finland, I can almost promise you that you will not need a firearm in the woods
The most dangerous creature here is a drunken idiot with a broken bottle, but luckily that species is not met in the woods Anyway, if you think Finns don't have guns, please check your sources. We have more than 300 000 registered hunters here (the overall population being 5 millions), and a really active voluntery national defense network. Also, (almost) all men here know how to shoot, and have plenty of training with an assault rifle due to compulsory military service. So, it's not a question of having guns, it's just wheter or not we like dragging them along on our past time. I don't think secret dark op goverment troops is a realistic risk in the woods
Hey, I take that as a compliment, lil'John was my favourite in the orginal "Adventures of Robin Hood"
But, you emphasized my point. That's exactly what I meant. To answer the question "Do you need a firearm to survive", the only right answer is yes and no. There are after all very few items that are necessities in all environments.
Edit: By the way, you stated that in your environment "survival=firearm. It is every bit as important as hydration in my book"... it would be extremely interesting to read examples of situations where firearms have saved your life. Sounds like a rough terrain.
Last edited:
As far as the whole "weapons of our time" thing is concerned, the only weapon that man absolutely does need to survive is his mind - this has always been true and always will. The primitive man didn't have a relatively low, by modern standards, life expectancy because he didn't have firearms. Firearms don't work against illness or physical injury or hostile weather, main causes of death in those times. Most people didn't get mauled by angry dire wolves and cave bears, or speared by other equally primitive humans but with longer spears. Against the worst things you'll encounter in the wilds, a firearm does absolutely nothing to help you. Animals and men can be dangerous when they're hostile, but there are much worse things. Let me put it this way: if you were to be dropped smack in the middle of wintry Siberian tundra with either one full set of warm clothes or your firearm of choice with all the ammo you can carry, which would you rather take? I know what I would take. Of course, that choice depends on what your plan is: to commit suicide quickly and painlessly or to try to survive. 
Perhaps people are being confused by different interpretations of the word "need". To me, "need" means something you can't live without - if you don't have it, you'll die with absolute certainty, and most likely rather swiftly, no matter where the hell you are. That means food, air, water, sleep. These things you need. But then, there are many other things which are only "useful", and varying levels of that - things that may be only dead weight one day and yet might save your ass the next. With this rather simple and natural definition, firearms obviously aren't needed, because millions and millions of people have and continue to survive without ever even owning a firearm, much less carrying one. Are firearms useful? Of course they are. Why the heck would they be used by quite a number of smart people if they weren't useful? But so useful as to be necessary? Nowhere even near so, obviously. Perhaps people misunderstand the point guys like me and attej are trying to make. Just because something isn't "needed" as in absolutely necessary for survival, doesn't mean you shouldn't carry it or wouldn't benefit from it in certain circumstances. You should weigh the circumstances and study them, and make an informed decision to carry or not to carry - whatever the decision is, though, don't claim you need something just because you benefit from it, because that's not what the word "need" means. I don't think firearms are needed for survival. But I do know they can be very useful and even life-saving (well, for you anyway - the other party in the conflict may be less saved) in certain cases. I'm an advocate of gun rights, and if I felt like I could really benefit from having a firearm with me most of the time, I would carry one irregardless of the laws here. But frankly, there is no need, and there are more downsides than benefits to it. In other places, my choices might be different.
Now, I've been to some places I would rather not have been, in hindsight. Africa is one good example, now that someone mentioned it. I haven't been to southern Texas, but I'd wager things there aren't so bad that I would certainly get killed if I hiked around there without a firearm for, say, 2 or 3 years. I bet a number of folks have lived in Texas without carrying firearms, and still do, and have yet survived all the immense danger - perhaps by application of their mental talents, or perhaps by sheer dumb luck. It matters not - if you can survive without it, it's not necessary or needed. Only that which you absolutely, under no conditions, cannot survive without, is necessary and needed.
Me, I think those people who honestly believe firearms are needed for survival either 1) have a very different interpretation of the word "need" than I do, or 2) have never been to the really rough places, or perhaps both of these.
If I was to go to South Africa, again, tomorrow, and hiking, yes, I would want a gun. I wouldn't absolutely need one, though. And I might still get wasted even if I had an assault rifle. Actually, if I had freedom of choice as to what to bring, I'd bring an AH-64 and a good pilot. That might be reasonably secure. Because, in my experience, those places where having a firearm really notably increases your chances of survival are places where even with that firearm you're still somewhat more unlikely to survive than I would like to...
The basic needs aren't very different anywhere, actually. People may have different ideas as to the meaning of the word "need", though. What truly varies most is how beneficial and useful certain luxuries like firearms and other weapons are. Somewhere where there are few people and few large animals, firearms are dead weight. Somewhere where there are lots of people and lots of large animals, firearms are far more useful, but still not necessary.
I understand most here are woodsmen and survivalist types. I would certainly describe myself so. In that context, it's no surprise a lot of us put a lot of value on things like guns and knives, and rightly so. But still - if you can survive without it... Well, how do you know whether it can be done or no? Some things are obvious without testing, but I wonder if anyone of those who says firearms are needed for survival has ever been anywhere without a firearm? In the woods, hiking? If they have, and they're still alive and writing stuff here, perhaps they should reconsider their idea of the necessity of firearms. This is a good way to illustrate the difference between needed and useful. Lots of folks here and there have survived, say, three months without a firearm in the wilds. But none whatsoever have survived three months without drink. I wonder why there is a difference....
Those of you in the States who think firearms are needed, a friendly question from someone who hasn't spent time there: what exactly do you have there that will with absolute certainty kill you if you don't have a firearm to help you? How common are these dangers? We have murderers and thugs in Finland, also, and harm could come to man wherever he goes in any country, including the woods here - but firearms are limited in what they can do.
The issue here is not complacence - it's realism. Actually, security by inanimate tools is false security - the only security a man can have comes from his mind. Being careful and aware of one's surroundings is important - I aim to be aware all of the time, although it's not always that easy. Complacent? Certainly not. But realistically, in western countries, there aren't many places where survival would be anywhere near unlikely without a firearm.
Firearms aren't magic talismans. They'll only help you when you know how to use them, and more importantly still, when you have time to use them. If one routinely gets surprised by wacko methcookers, a firearm is sooner or later going to be less than enough. Some people are living in a strange combination of fear and complacency - as if they thought the world is just chock full of people and animals wanting to hurt them (this is the fear part), but somehow, just by carrying a firearm, these dangers would suddenly turn into such minimal risks that you decide to walk out and face them routinely (this is the complacency part). Either it's dangerous or it isn't - if it's mortally dangerous without a firearm, it's still pretty damn dangerous with a firearm, and it's a good idea to reconsider whether one should do something that dangerous.
If I was going somewhere where it was anywhere near likely that I would run into an armed person intent on harming me, I would very much like to carry a firearm, and would do so regardless of law. On the other hand, I would much rather stay the hell out of that place in the first place, unless I'm getting paid for going there.
So, that's my stand on the issue. In short: Firearms, useful at times, dead weight at other times. Decide for yourself, based on your environment and how useful firearms are there, whether or not to carry one. A needed necessity firearms, or any man-made weapons, aren't, though, and haven't been in history, either, not in any environment. A lot of folks have survived without even those spears, finding food through gathering and perhaps hunting with traps rather than weapons, and finding shelter from hostile humans through hiding from them and/or strangling the bastards when they sleep. In those environments where firearms greatly increase chances of survival, survival is rather unlikely already, which isn't a good thing. All in all, best remember one thing - carry a firearm or do not carry one, but don't think for a second that either is going to save your life, because you're going to have to do the saving part yourself anyway, armed or no. I own a lot of guns (even by Finnish standards - there are very few countries in the world where there are more firearms per capita than there are in Finland), and if I felt I would likely benefit from carrying one in the woods, I would do it. The benefit isn't there, though - the weight and legal issues are more annoying than the aid a firearm would bring in the extremely unlikely case I'm attacked by something that doesn't want to go down without shooting it full of holes. If the laws were different, I might sometimes carry a gun out there for fun, and to practice with it, but not for any survival use. If I figured there was a really notable "survival" benefit to it, I wouldn't go there in the first place, even with a gun, unless there was an extremely great reason.
Oh well - that was long. But I hope it explains what I was aiming at: the difference between "useful" and "needed." Most of the stuff you and I carry aren't needed, just useful. Important distinction, nonetheless, because you really have to be mindful of what you need and plan accordingly. Some useful things can be left behind, but you had better make sure you have a way of getting what you need. Otherwise, it's death. Cheers, brothers. :thumbup:
Perhaps people are being confused by different interpretations of the word "need". To me, "need" means something you can't live without - if you don't have it, you'll die with absolute certainty, and most likely rather swiftly, no matter where the hell you are. That means food, air, water, sleep. These things you need. But then, there are many other things which are only "useful", and varying levels of that - things that may be only dead weight one day and yet might save your ass the next. With this rather simple and natural definition, firearms obviously aren't needed, because millions and millions of people have and continue to survive without ever even owning a firearm, much less carrying one. Are firearms useful? Of course they are. Why the heck would they be used by quite a number of smart people if they weren't useful? But so useful as to be necessary? Nowhere even near so, obviously. Perhaps people misunderstand the point guys like me and attej are trying to make. Just because something isn't "needed" as in absolutely necessary for survival, doesn't mean you shouldn't carry it or wouldn't benefit from it in certain circumstances. You should weigh the circumstances and study them, and make an informed decision to carry or not to carry - whatever the decision is, though, don't claim you need something just because you benefit from it, because that's not what the word "need" means. I don't think firearms are needed for survival. But I do know they can be very useful and even life-saving (well, for you anyway - the other party in the conflict may be less saved) in certain cases. I'm an advocate of gun rights, and if I felt like I could really benefit from having a firearm with me most of the time, I would carry one irregardless of the laws here. But frankly, there is no need, and there are more downsides than benefits to it. In other places, my choices might be different.
Now, I've been to some places I would rather not have been, in hindsight. Africa is one good example, now that someone mentioned it. I haven't been to southern Texas, but I'd wager things there aren't so bad that I would certainly get killed if I hiked around there without a firearm for, say, 2 or 3 years. I bet a number of folks have lived in Texas without carrying firearms, and still do, and have yet survived all the immense danger - perhaps by application of their mental talents, or perhaps by sheer dumb luck. It matters not - if you can survive without it, it's not necessary or needed. Only that which you absolutely, under no conditions, cannot survive without, is necessary and needed.
Me, I think those people who honestly believe firearms are needed for survival either 1) have a very different interpretation of the word "need" than I do, or 2) have never been to the really rough places, or perhaps both of these.
If I was to go to South Africa, again, tomorrow, and hiking, yes, I would want a gun. I wouldn't absolutely need one, though. And I might still get wasted even if I had an assault rifle. Actually, if I had freedom of choice as to what to bring, I'd bring an AH-64 and a good pilot. That might be reasonably secure. Because, in my experience, those places where having a firearm really notably increases your chances of survival are places where even with that firearm you're still somewhat more unlikely to survive than I would like to...
The basic needs aren't very different anywhere, actually. People may have different ideas as to the meaning of the word "need", though. What truly varies most is how beneficial and useful certain luxuries like firearms and other weapons are. Somewhere where there are few people and few large animals, firearms are dead weight. Somewhere where there are lots of people and lots of large animals, firearms are far more useful, but still not necessary.
I understand most here are woodsmen and survivalist types. I would certainly describe myself so. In that context, it's no surprise a lot of us put a lot of value on things like guns and knives, and rightly so. But still - if you can survive without it... Well, how do you know whether it can be done or no? Some things are obvious without testing, but I wonder if anyone of those who says firearms are needed for survival has ever been anywhere without a firearm? In the woods, hiking? If they have, and they're still alive and writing stuff here, perhaps they should reconsider their idea of the necessity of firearms.
This is a good way to illustrate the difference between needed and useful. Lots of folks here and there have survived, say, three months without a firearm in the wilds. But none whatsoever have survived three months without drink. I wonder why there is a difference....Those of you in the States who think firearms are needed, a friendly question from someone who hasn't spent time there: what exactly do you have there that will with absolute certainty kill you if you don't have a firearm to help you? How common are these dangers? We have murderers and thugs in Finland, also, and harm could come to man wherever he goes in any country, including the woods here - but firearms are limited in what they can do.
The issue here is not complacence - it's realism. Actually, security by inanimate tools is false security - the only security a man can have comes from his mind. Being careful and aware of one's surroundings is important - I aim to be aware all of the time, although it's not always that easy. Complacent? Certainly not. But realistically, in western countries, there aren't many places where survival would be anywhere near unlikely without a firearm.
Firearms aren't magic talismans. They'll only help you when you know how to use them, and more importantly still, when you have time to use them. If one routinely gets surprised by wacko methcookers, a firearm is sooner or later going to be less than enough. Some people are living in a strange combination of fear and complacency - as if they thought the world is just chock full of people and animals wanting to hurt them (this is the fear part), but somehow, just by carrying a firearm, these dangers would suddenly turn into such minimal risks that you decide to walk out and face them routinely (this is the complacency part). Either it's dangerous or it isn't - if it's mortally dangerous without a firearm, it's still pretty damn dangerous with a firearm, and it's a good idea to reconsider whether one should do something that dangerous.
If I was going somewhere where it was anywhere near likely that I would run into an armed person intent on harming me, I would very much like to carry a firearm, and would do so regardless of law. On the other hand, I would much rather stay the hell out of that place in the first place, unless I'm getting paid for going there.
So, that's my stand on the issue. In short: Firearms, useful at times, dead weight at other times. Decide for yourself, based on your environment and how useful firearms are there, whether or not to carry one. A needed necessity firearms, or any man-made weapons, aren't, though, and haven't been in history, either, not in any environment. A lot of folks have survived without even those spears, finding food through gathering and perhaps hunting with traps rather than weapons, and finding shelter from hostile humans through hiding from them and/or strangling the bastards when they sleep. In those environments where firearms greatly increase chances of survival, survival is rather unlikely already, which isn't a good thing. All in all, best remember one thing - carry a firearm or do not carry one, but don't think for a second that either is going to save your life, because you're going to have to do the saving part yourself anyway, armed or no. I own a lot of guns (even by Finnish standards - there are very few countries in the world where there are more firearms per capita than there are in Finland), and if I felt I would likely benefit from carrying one in the woods, I would do it. The benefit isn't there, though - the weight and legal issues are more annoying than the aid a firearm would bring in the extremely unlikely case I'm attacked by something that doesn't want to go down without shooting it full of holes. If the laws were different, I might sometimes carry a gun out there for fun, and to practice with it, but not for any survival use. If I figured there was a really notable "survival" benefit to it, I wouldn't go there in the first place, even with a gun, unless there was an extremely great reason.
Oh well - that was long. But I hope it explains what I was aiming at: the difference between "useful" and "needed." Most of the stuff you and I carry aren't needed, just useful. Important distinction, nonetheless, because you really have to be mindful of what you need and plan accordingly. Some useful things can be left behind, but you had better make sure you have a way of getting what you need. Otherwise, it's death. Cheers, brothers. :thumbup:
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,823
Me too.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
Post expired.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,035
Then what's your point in saying they aren't "absolutely necessary"?
Going by that standard, all you need are appropriate clothes.
First Aid kit? Nope, don't NEED it.
Tarp/tent? Nope, don't NEED it (see appropriate clothing).
Knife? Nope, don't NEED it.
Canteen? Nope.
Food? Nope.
None of the above fall in the "I'm going to die everytime if I don't have it" category. Yet most of us carry some combination of the above. Must be the fear in us, eh?
Most would say I was stupid if I called my FAK dead weight. Yet, other than a bandaid and neosporin (and that wasn't needed, I could have easily made it home and dealt with it there), I haven't needed it. "But IF you needed it you could have died without it! It's stupid not to carry it!"
Right.
Having to make my way through a brood of moccasins to get out of the fishing hole I talked about earlier, may well have been fatal without a gun. I've used my gun more than my first aid kit. Maybe I should leave the FAK at home as dead weight, because it's only fear that makes people carry it, and keep my much more useful (and used) gun?
No, I'll carry both, thank you.
I also want to note that those who don't see the need to carry a firearm, are often, if not mostly, those that live in areas forbidding it.
Much like people who live in areas where carrying anything more than a pocket knife or under 4" folder can't understand why us southerners have big fixed blades on our hips.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 21,367
It was mentioned by others that it depends on WHERE YOU ARE. Different areas have different hazards, and require different equipment.
You could extend others the courtesy of reading their entire posts, and seeing what they were getting at, rather than seeing it as an excuse for snide remarks.
In bear country, I'd lug a 12 gauge along.
In many areas, a knife and a stick would do me just fine.
If I was in an area where nasty snakes were likely to bite me, I'd take the 12 gauge(shot-shells in pistols are LAME compared to an actual, proper shot gun
).In an area filled with hillbillies, I'd bring a .357 magnum revolver, 6 inch barrel(S&W Highway Patrolman likely), or, once again, the trusty old 12 gauge.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2007
- Messages
- 6,583
No one has ever really needed a gun to survive. Like a knife, a gun is simply a tool with which you can do some tasks much easier with. Many people have survived without a knife or gun. It's much easier however if you have both.
Given the choice of a knife, a gun or a good hatchet, I will take the hatchet every time.
Given the choice of a knife, a gun or a good hatchet, I will take the hatchet every time.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,944
my body and mind are a finely tuned weapon.......LOL seriously I carry mace or bearspray mostly for stray dogs,,, If I could carry a pistol I would just because...it's a pistol...but thats pretty tough to do legally here..If I'm out in the real thick of it for a few days I sometimes bring a shotgun or a .22 just for plinking or if I'm hunting.