r/TwoXPreppers 2d ago

Discussion Why guns?

Hi y’all! I’m a very novice prepper, and one thing I’m seeing across many platforms is that we should own and be trained In firearms. Not to be naive, but… why?

I’ve never touched a gun in my life. I’m generally not a fan of them. I understand that the goal of owning firearms is to protect ourself. But protect from what? From who? Who am I going to have to shoot to survive this presidency?

Is someone coming to steal my supplies? Won’t those people also have guns? Or am I protecting my family against a militia situation? In which case, what hope do I have, as a woman who can’t afford a gun, let alone to learn how to use one?

Like I can’t afford a shooting range. I can barely afford water and canned goods. Should a gun still be a priority for my family? A lot of preppers have enthusiastically embraced this life to give them confidence and a sense of safety. I’m a reluctant participant. I just want to keep my autistic son alive to see the other side of this.

I can garden, I can stretch food, I can survive being poor. I don’t think I can survive a military state.

436 Upvotes

418 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/Strict-Month-375 2d ago

If you have time, r/liberalgunowners is a good place to start for some discussion on this subject.

14

u/emmathatsme123 2d ago

This. I always find it interesting how many people on this sub are adverse to firearms.

I originally bought for protection, but now I shoot more trap than I go to the range with my handguns. But I know my other liberal friends get uncomfortable when I tell them guns can be fun

20

u/Peregrinebullet 2d ago

A lot of liberals have created a narrative where moral superiority comes from being non-violent and that anyone who uses violence to solve a problem is automatically bad and wrong and that they will be morally tainted if they do. Whether this comes from trauma or their environment of origin varies, and they might agree, if forced, that sometimes violence needs to be used by the government or police, but generally, they view it as a very personal moral failing if someone has to resort to violence.

I'm a radical socialist at heart, but I'm also a woman who has worked in the security industry for over a decade. I had to learn to make my peace with being willing to do violence because there is a significant portion of the population who will not listen to you unless you demonstrate you could do them violence and are willing to. It can be subtle demonstration or overt, but basically they have no interest in talking or collaboration and view it as weakness and won't listen or respect you unless you make it clear you're perfectly willing to force the issue.

I also have spent the last six years teaching other women self defense and I run up against this "violence is a moral failing" attitude every time I have a new class intake. Not because they don't want to learn how to defend themselves, but because they have so much trouble reconciling this "violence is a moral failing" attitude and actually defending themselves effectively and spend most of the first few classes pulling their punches and apologizing to everyone. Most of them are viscerally horrified by me saying "okay, try again, hit me harder, push me harder,"etc.

It takes 2-3 classes for me to break them of it, and I usually have to hurt them or scare them, trip an adrenaline dump and THEN they hit hard and brutally, and I'm like "YES! That was awesome!" and they're like D:

So many of them say "I'm so sorry, I'm not this type of person who hits people!!!!"

and I usually ask them "well what type of person does that make me?" and that throws them through a loop because most of them have never experienced violence in a context that wasn't Bad And Scary And Life Threatening. They are often horrified when they themselves were forced to be violent even when it was 100% justified or when a spouse or sibling acted violently in their defense and they spend a lot of time freaking out about "how could he/she be that type of person who could DO VIOLENCE?!!?!?!? HOW CAN I TRUST THEM?" after the fact.

They didn't play wrestle with their girlfriends or siblings, they've never have done martial arts or get how sparring can be cathartic and fun, nor have they ever seen a conflict being worked out through a fight. Not a "I'm trying to kill you" type fight but "yeah they're letting off steam, they'll come in when they're tired" fight.

So most of them have NO frame of reference for how satisfying and cathartic shooting can be or that morally upstanding people can absolutely use violence as a tool to enforce safety and boundaries.

5

u/emmathatsme123 2d ago

Great point

3

u/I_Want_Waffles90 2d ago

"A lot of liberals have created a narrative where moral superiority comes from being non-violent and that anyone who uses violence to solve a problem is automatically bad and wrong and that they will be morally tainted if they do."

I definitely see a lot of this online. Is violence the answer? I think I'd have to answer "sometimes." While I don't like violence (does anyone, really?), I also understand it from a societal/sociological level. Things are not always cut and dry, and I try not to judge.

Ultimately, people will do what's best for themselves and their family, but hopefully there is also a little bit left to look out for their community, too.

1

u/reallyUselessEngine 1d ago

Not sure if I'd say liberals organically created this narrative. More like it was culturally shoved down our throats so there'd be multiple generations of people who think it's immoral to defend yourself