Guns as medium of exchange


PDA






atlctyslkr
June 26, 2006, 08:45 PM
How valuable do you think a "common" gun would be in the event of a civil breakdown? That is what do you think someone would be willing to pay for a new or like new 4" .38 special.

Let's look at this in terms of ounces of gold. Gold is about $585 an ounce right now.

S&W lists on their site that the suggested retail for a new Model 10 is $572 (about an ounce of gold)

Assuming ammo is not a concern, how much (ounces of gold) do you think you could sell one for in the event of a breakdown?

Think about someone who lives in a upper class suburb neighborhood, doesn't own any firearms, and the city proper is full or riots and fires and this chaos may be marching out from the city into the surrounding areas. It's not going to get better. The SHTF and the party's over.

I have thougth several times about buying up some average guns and holding on to them. I doubt I'll lose money, in the long run I may make quite a bit if the government tries to further restrict ownership.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns as medium of exchange" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1 old 0311
June 26, 2006, 08:49 PM
Kind of depends on how far into such a situation we are into. Ammo would probably be close to as valuable. Some of each, and the means of defending it.

Kevin

rbernie
June 26, 2006, 09:11 PM
I will admit, under some duress, to buying a few extra K-frames and AKs and such on occasion. I do this not because I need this stuff but because it's cheap at the moment and I cannot help but believe that it'll come in handy at some point in my children's life. I have no way of placing a monetary value on it. I simply value it.

But I've heard it said, as a general SHTF philosophy - don't tell folks that you've got arms to spare, and don't provide arms to anyone that you wouldn't explicitly trust with your life. Sometimes money just ain't worth the cost.

KINGMAX
June 26, 2006, 09:28 PM
Just in case the "SHTF' thing happens I would like to have something made for personal protection, :scrutiny: (i.e. AK's SKS 7.62 x 39, Mosin's 7.62 x 54r, 870 in 12 guage, for the long stuff, .45, .44 mag, .357 mag, 38 & .22 magnum for the side arm stuff). :scrutiny: I think that should cover it. I guess I get all my family, friends, guns, ammo, food and water hand head for the fish camp ' El' Gusto for what ever may follow. :rolleyes: I will be getting at least 1600-1800 rounds for the Mosin's this weekend. I hope to get a thousand rounds of 7.62 x 39 ??? :eek: Who :fire: knows :what:

PRAY FOR PEACE:)

pdowg881
June 26, 2006, 09:30 PM
I gotta get going on this shtf stuff. I got zippo. Before this forum I used to think shtf was a messed up way of saying stfu. lol. But I'm 18 so I'm pretty much positive that the s will h the f before the end of my life.

Technosavant
June 26, 2006, 09:43 PM
I was thinking about this earlier.

Money (or gold, for that matter), as only a medium of exchange, only has the worth that people are willing to assign to it. Cash (say, a nice large stack of real federal reserve greenbacks) is only useful if the US government will still be around.

In a Katrina type disaster, although cash might not be terribly useful in a flooded city, once you get back to proper civilization, it is one of the most useful things in existence. You can and will get back to a place where things are (more or less) normal. You can get a hotel room, clothing, food, or anything else for that money. Guns are useful in this situation, but only for self defense- there won't be much need to hunt for your own food for extended periods of time. In this situation, gold would not be terribly useful; not bad, but not going to save your bacon, either. If, say, such a situation came about, I might consider selling excess firearms for gold, since the gold would be able to be redeemed for cash, with which I can buy replacements later when things have settled down. I would, however, expect to receive a dollar value of gold far beyond the dollar value of gun (supply/demand, utility of gun vs. gold).

In a situation which would be very bad SHTF to TEOTWAKI (think Stephen King's The Stand), cash is worthless. It has ceased to be a medium of exchange, since anything and everything is available anywhere. In that situation, guns and ammo (as well as food supplies like MREs or other nonperishable supplies) would be worth more than any gold (can't eat gold, can't use it to get food, etc.). In this situation, I would not be trading guns for gold.

Honestly, I can't think of any situation in which cash has become worthless where gold would not have lost all of its useful value.

armedandsafe
June 26, 2006, 10:25 PM
I was told by a crusty old DI, once "Give guns only to those you are willing to turn your back on."

When everybody was going crazy with the Y2K stuff, I would read the forums and usenet threads and wonder what was the big deal. I've always had that stuff on hand. We ran out of food ONE time in my life. A year off work will do that to a family of 6. Still had ammo, though, so the kids continued to eat. A high protien diet doesn't really hurt you that much. :neener:

Pops

dmckean44
June 26, 2006, 11:00 PM
If you wanted to keep guns around for trading wappum in a future US/world breakdown I would say get a bunch of quality but cheap .22LR bolt actions and a bunch of the cheaper Marlin .336s in .30-30 and a ton of ammo for each. People aren't going to want dedicated self defense guns, they're going to want guns for hunting and predator control as well as self defense. Maybe shotguns with a buch of birdshot as well.

Stainless Chili
June 26, 2006, 11:15 PM
Used K frames are around for a couple hundred bucks or so, each. No need to gouge your neighbors, if immediate concerns are met.

$400 or an ounce of gold is a fair price for a functioning revolver, 50 rounds of ammo, and basic training.

Let them know that the handgun is meant to use while one retrives a rifle.

$800 for a decent Mini-14, 500 rounds of ammo, and training.

leadcounsel
June 26, 2006, 11:17 PM
Here's my take, after thinking about this often.

I love the beginning of the movie "The Road Warrior." The prologue is probably the best of any movie.

Humans built a house of straw, and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all...

Seriously though, with only a little thought about the potential for "interuptioptions in supplies, law, and order," there are a number of local, statewide, national, and global that could wreak havoc and small, medium, and large scales for short (days), medium (weeks), or long term (months or longer).

IF, and possibly WHEN, this all happens, here's what I think will be valued, in no particular order -- it's hard to order these without knowing exactly the cause of the breakdown; some scenarios would make water more scarce than others, for instance).

1) Clean water,
2) Clean nutrious food,
3) Tools (many subparts)
a) Tools that are human powered
b) tools that serve many uses (an ax cuts wood and can be a weapon; a knife skins food and can be a weapon, etc.)
c) Tools that effectively overwhelm predators -- e.g. GUNS and AMMO
4) Shelter (would be higher on the list, but probably would be fairly common depending on the scenario, could be higher in importance.)
5) Clean appropriate clothing for the weather.
6) Don't laugh, booze and cigarettes -- people will need their fix and will pay ANY price.
7) Gasoline and oil
8) Generator

This list could go on...

However, depending on how BAD the situation is, here's what I think WON'T have any value in a society where there is total breakdown.

1) Currency -- after a BIG breakdown
2) Gold, silver, 'precious' gems, etc.
3) All that garbage people spend their hard earned money on "nesting" their homes... e.g. useless decorations

The interesting thing about studying the NOLAs, Tsunami victims, etc. is that the TRUE value of items becomes clear. Rationale people tend to start leaving worthless weight behind as they fight for survival.

Sure, people steal stereos, TVs, and loot... however in a long term sitaution all of these "worthless" items would soon show their dead weight value.

We have built society around paying too much for things that serve no or little purpose other than being "pretty" such as diamonds, gold, silver, knick knacks, etc. In any longer term survival situation, this will all change.


Now, to the question. I think that in a TRUE and DANGEROUS breakdown situation, it would be fantastic to become a neighborhood leader and ARM trusted neighbors and friends with inexpensive surplus rifles, like the SKS or bolt action Mausers and some inexpensive mil surp ammo.

MIL-DOT
June 26, 2006, 11:27 PM
i've thought about this a little bit,as well. one thing that occured to me as likely to have serious bartering value in the event of long-term civil breakown would be.....ALCOHOL. a couple cases of jim beam and smirnof. it won't cost too much,uncle sam doesn't know or care,and it's a billion+ dollar industry 'cause folks either really like it,or really need it !!! screw trading your guns away, how many people out there you think would trade YOU a smith and wesson for a 5th of whiskey once it ain't around ??;)

greg700
June 26, 2006, 11:36 PM
Rather than a $200 extra pistol, what about $200 of non-perishable food?

If someone doesn't have a basic firearm, then they probably don't have any food either. What do you think they are going to do if you arm them and send them away hungry?

You can buy a lot of flour for $200.

k_semler
June 27, 2006, 12:17 AM
Yes, they'll make a good commodity when TEOTWAWKI happens. However, I highly suggest NOT parting with a weapon unless you have 200% confidence that they will NOT EVER use that weapon against you. If you would trust them with a knife 1" from your throat that is razor sharp, then go ahead and sell them the weapon. However, if you have any reservation whatsoever about your life in thier hands, (because it literally would be), do not sell them the weapon, nor even let them know you have it. Also, do not know you have "extra" weapons, the last thing you want is an armed stand off because they want your cache. A far more useful, valuble, and less dangerous ,(to the seller), commodity would be double-ply toilet paper.

dmckean44
June 27, 2006, 12:22 AM
lol.

It's funny how all these people that say they support RKBA don't actually trust anyone with them.

leadcounsel
June 27, 2006, 12:28 AM
I think it states the obvious you're not going to trade your guns and ammo away from potential vagabonds....But if those vegabonds are unarmed, you'll likely be TAKING their goods. ;)

Guns will help you lead your community however. I have several neighbors I would trust with guns to be allies and band together, but I also suspect they don't have any. They could be taught to use simple firearms in an afternoon and would be eternally grateful for means to defend their families. And these honest folks wouldn't turn on me after I provided them with a useful tool and knowledge. You would demonstrate you value to the community with your skills and tools and they would be foolish to turn on you.

Seriously, as I mentioned above, booze and tobacco will be good commododies and are relatively cheap now too.

greg700
June 27, 2006, 12:28 AM
dmckean44:

Most of us are pro 2A and do trust most people with firearms. Also, we aren't stopping anybody from going out and purchasing firearms now as part of their preparations.

However, just as it would be stupid to hand a mugger your pistol, you don't want to arm someone who is desperate and has no other way to obtain food than to shoot you with the weapon you just gave him.

It's not hypocrasy, just common sense.

Why are you so eager to find fault with the members who are posting to this thread?

aaronrkelly
June 27, 2006, 12:33 AM
I believe that a person without a gun that thinks they need one would do/give almost anything to get one.

That could be good or bad....serious double edged sword.

I have some military surplus guns and cheap firearms that the only real reason to own its simply to "have" them. Dont get me wrong, I dont think a person needs to have a reason to own a gun.......but these specific guns I dont have a reason to own.

I would use them as bartering to get something I need, proven the conditions were right - IE, I trust the person Im giving the gun enough that he isnt going to turn around and attack me with it. I would also freely loan them to friends or family should the certain conditions be right......

Buy guns for bartering or just to have - damn good idea.......afterall, you can never really have to many guns can you?

KINGMAX
June 27, 2006, 03:29 AM
I am from Fayetteville NC - Graduated from Seventy-First back in 1970 - My parents live behind Cape Fear Vally Hospital on Sandra Drive how about you ??? :D

dmckean44
June 27, 2006, 04:58 AM
greg700:

I've just never cared much for the attitude that if you didn't think of buying a gun before the disaster that you deserve what you get. After the dust settles in a SHTF situation theres going to be a lot of people starting a new life and they'll need the tools to do it. Automatically distrusting everyone you meet isn't going to accomplish anything. Having .22s and 30-30s and other common calibers around to trade with could be very useful.

I think I like the alcohol idea posted eariler in the thread. I could see that it being very expensive for a long while since even if distilleries pop up quickly it'd be years and maybe even decades before the hone their craft.

DunedinDragon
June 27, 2006, 08:01 AM
Given how long it might be until you actually have a SHTF scenario (if ever) in which you could make some significant profit selling guns you've collected, I suspect the odds would be MUCH better making a profit on the same money invested in a CD. Guns as an investment would only work under the most expansive SHTF scenario which is also the least likely scenario.

As for me, I'll wait for a few months after the SHTF situation calms down and buy up all those guns that everyone bought in reaction to the situation and never really wanted at a good price....just for my personal use.

dfaugh
June 27, 2006, 08:18 AM
Money (or gold, for that matter), as only a medium of exchange, only has the worth that people are willing to assign to it. Cash (say, a nice large stack of real federal reserve greenbacks) is only useful if the US government will still be around.

Yeah I love all the people (and I know a few) that hoard silver or gold (or in one case diamonds), "just in case". YOU CAN'T EAT THIS STUFF PEOPLE. And I'm surely not giving you one of my guns (or ammo) for it.

While I have enough guns to part with a couple, they would only go to relatives, or very close friends. Gratis, nothing expected in return. Most of my friends have more guns than I do.

However, all my close family and friends, know that if things really go to heck, they should come to me. I/we (my sons and I) are in a good position to "weather the storm", and they're much better off staying right here.

When Y2K was coming (and being a computer geek, I knew the likelyhood of problems was near zero), many of my friends were buying generators, stocking up on food, etc. They asked me what I was doing, and I replied "Nothing. I have guns and ammo. I can get whatever I need!" 'Nough said?

rbernie
June 27, 2006, 08:28 AM
I've just never cared much for the attitude that if you didn't think of buying a gun before the disaster that you deserve what you get.I don't see much of that in this thread. What I see here is a natural survivial instinct - in a time of trouble, my first responsibility is to me-n-mine. I wish everyone else the best, but if they failed to make hay while the sun shone then I guess they'll have to do without.

Maybe it's a natural aversion to the welfare state mentality, that 'I don't have to plan for it because when I need it somebody else will have to give it me, just because' kind of approach to life. <shrug> I dunno. But I don't think people are being mean-spirited.

Automatically distrusting everyone you meet isn't going to accomplish anything. Might keep you alive.

If you've never been in seriously hard times - lemme tell you that people change. Folks that you thought you knew inside-n-out wind up doing things you'd never have thought them capable. Hard times make hard people, dude.

Not suggesting that you should be rude or crappy to folk - just that you not extend a deadly weapon to 'em until such time as you feel that you KNOW how, when, where, and why they would use it.

Roadwild17
June 27, 2006, 08:38 AM
If the conditions were right, I could part with a few. Our local "SHTF club' I guess you could call it, we have 4 people armed to the teeth (well not compares to some of the guys on here) and the guy who owns the local grocery store. We give him a gun or two and offer protection for him, he gives us food. Seriously he is a friend who loves to shoot but his wife is a STRICT anti. She’ll get mad when we sneak him away and he comes shoot with us, but when that times come were all gona be screaming "we told you so :neener: "


Just remember, you might trust them now, but would you trust them when they and there family are starving and you have all kind of food, and life as they know it is interrupted for a while. I asked myself that about a few people and the answer did surprise me:scrutiny: .

Model520Fan
June 27, 2006, 09:11 AM
How many people do you know who know what a gun is for and don't already have one?

Just wondering.

Although I do know a few, I am, in general, a bit wary of the motives of those who don't already own guns. Of course, I keep my concerns to myself, and watch and listen in an attempt to learn more, but there it is - I am initially suspicious.

I'm not a gun dealer now, and I don't expect to be one in the future.

hso
June 27, 2006, 09:13 AM
Assuming ammo is not a concern, how much (ounces of gold) do you think you could sell one for in the event of a breakdown?

Can't eat gold. Can't shoot gold. Can't wear gold (well, not in the sense I mean). Can't heat with it.

If you're in a short term breakdown, sure load up on bling. If you think it's going to last, trade them out of their bleach and high octane before someone takes it from them.

Mannlicher
June 27, 2006, 09:43 AM
probably not much of an exchange item. There has to be hundreds of millions of guns in America. No shortage here. Ammo and spare parts sound like a better idea to me.

Lou629
June 27, 2006, 01:46 PM
The available supply of ammunition would probably dry up much faster than there would be any shortage of guns to go around. Presuming one already owns guns chambered for them, keeping a few extra boxes of the more commonly available calibers around could help both you and the guy you're trading with. If it happens to be one of your neighbors or friends, then so much the better, then you would have a commonly-armed and supplied support group as well.

brandyspaw
June 27, 2006, 06:25 PM
I would have to agree that common ammo would be a better investment for a medium of exchange in those situations. There will be plenty of guns and most any other tool around as I would imagine many of these things would be plentifull in a protracted period of upheavel. However, things that are expendable such as ammo or nails, for example, will be of more value than say a gun or a hammer.

cortez kid
June 27, 2006, 07:13 PM
Ammo, Ammo, Ammo
kid

leadcounsel
June 27, 2006, 07:42 PM
Gas is to a car what ammo is to a gun....

Guns are important, but presumably you have many. Without gas a car is near worthless in a SHTF scenario, and without ammo guns are nearly worthless.

KINGMAX
June 30, 2006, 07:03 PM
went to the gun show - spent my $$$$ on ammo = :cuss: = OUCH

buttrap
July 1, 2006, 12:44 AM
The bottom line is you cant eat, drink or have sex with gold. It also does not defend your life. A beat up POS gun and a box of shells would be worth more than a ton of gold.

albanian
July 1, 2006, 12:56 AM
Why would you sell a gun for gold? If someone has gold but doesn't have a gun, I am going to have gold AND a gun. Ever hear of the golden rule? He who has the gold makes the rules? I like the gun rule, he who has the guns, makes the rules and then takes the gold from the people that used to be his boss.

Just kidding. My plan for dealing with situations like this is not be part of it if I can help it. I will try and get as far away as fast as I can. I am not interested in fighting over scraps in a dying city or country. There are always places to go. If I have to use my guns to get out of the city, then they would have served the purpose well. I am not hunting for my food either, that is lame. I expect take out at least twice a week and one nice restrarant meal on the weekend.

Gifted
July 1, 2006, 01:09 AM
Short term, gold is good, but something people need to remember is that even TEOTWAWKI isn't going to last forever. Poeple will rebuild, eventually, and if you think you can manage a nest egg, that will be useful.

condoms are one thing that hasn't been mentioned. People are going to have other needs.

akodo
July 1, 2006, 02:20 AM
three different scenarios

Type one, short term localized upheaval.

Rodney King type riots, middle class and rich people fairly well removed from the action may be quite interested in a firearm and not want to deal with waiting periods, which is exactly what happened in **********. Here you do have an excellent market for your medium value guns. I am thinking something like a bersa .380 and a box of 50 rounds would go for 3-5X standard value, be it cash or gold, because you can expect order to be restored, just don't want to worry about being killed by maurading gangs in the 2 weeks before it is restored. The chances of running out of gas, food, drinkable water is very low. People aren't starving, they are being murdered.

Any time you are going to worry about taking gold only because you worry about the stability of cash...well, I hope you plan on that gold being used to make your great great grandchild rich, because when things get that unstable raw cash, jewelry, fur coats, artworks, and gold aren't going to be valued much for years to come. The only exception to this would be in the face of an invading army, who will have no interest in the currency of the defeated nation but more than willing to accept gold and jewelry.

Type Two Longer term wider upheval.

Think Y2K. Large amounts of how stuff works right now is not working, be it computer related, terrorism takes out key infrastructure, big nuke test goes bad fries circuitry, etc etc. Here the aforementioned bersa plus 50 rounds is going to be very valueable again. However, the medium of exchange is going to be food, water, and gasoline. Then for an unarmed person or family group, a defensive firearm is going to be equal to roughyl half of the food, water, and gas they have. Your job will be to make sure you barter the gun with with individuals who are well stocked otherwise

Type Three - 6 months after, mess still giong

The fire has burnt itself out, but no government has been able to step up and fill the gap. Typical 'mad max' type senario. As mentioned, here the truely valuable commodity will be a .22 rifle and 1000 rounds of ammunition. You could probably trade that for a wife.

lysander
July 1, 2006, 12:55 PM
There have been several comments here that people think gold will cease to have value in the event of a long term societal collapse. I would tentatively agree that in the short to middle term people would be far more concerned with the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy and would prefer a .22 rifle with a box of 1000 rounds over a pound of gold. But over the long term...some kind of "currency" would gain accepted favor. Mostly for simple reasons; ease of transport, ease of exchange and measurement, etc.

Many primitive cultures have developed some form of exchange system around a common "currency" be it shells, jewels, wampum or what have you...and we wouldn't be starting totally from scratch. Very quickly, localized markets would rise...and merchants, former bankers or whatever would look for something uniform that could be used....and just like that the Federal Reserve will be reborn...LOL! :D

Regardless...I don't have enough gold or guns lying around to be anything more than a mere garbage picker in the Lord Humungous' army.

Gifted
July 2, 2006, 01:33 AM
I was kind of saying that. Short term it's every man for himself, then you start bartering, then you start looking for a currency to make trade easier. I'm looking at more silver than gold though. It's a bit more liquid(smaller denominations are easier), though it takes more space.

1 old 0311
July 2, 2006, 07:34 AM
In the aftermath of Katrina the people who WERE PREPARED, and left, found that that stack of $100.00 bills, or one ounce gold coins didn't buy a thing. If you can only get 3-4 gallons of gas, or 1-2 loves of bread are you going to pay $100.00, or one ounce of gold for it? IF you are going to go this route get $10.00's or $20.00's

Gifted
July 3, 2006, 12:13 AM
Kevin, the gold and silver are for when the greenbacks are worthless. Right now, you have a government that will enforce the fact that they do have(though slowly dwindling) purchasing power. If the government or people stop refusing cash though, it won't matter if you have 100s or 20s. That route will only work with something like Katrina where you know that once you're out of the disaster, either through distance or time, you'll be able to buy stuff with it.

Clark
July 3, 2006, 12:38 AM
I have a tiered survival plan;

1) Things go well, plan to retire in comfort
Things have gone well for 200 years, I have 30 years left, 85% chance of the same.
Real estate, stocks, retirement, gold, bonds, guns.

2) Things go bad locally with a few days to get out.
This is what goes wrong with 15% of the time
This could be from revolution, huge earthquake, terrorism,
Gold, passport, car, fly to Costa Rica from Canada.

3) Things go bad globally or very quickly locally
This could be from a comet, meteor, revolution, terrorism, revolution, nuke attack.
Meteors and comets are 100,000 year problems, .1% chance in my lifetime
Revolution will not be fast around here.
A nuke attack, never gas, or fuel air bombs could wreck infrastructure locally, but probably not anarchy
Food, water, medicine, guns, ammo, fuel

What does it all mean?
The chance I will need a gun or trade guns for niceties is small ~ .1%
But guns have made 3% compounded for me over the past 40 years, and that is not a bad investment.
If guns are outlawed, they could loose their value.
With the coming of cameras connected to computers, there will be no more private sales in a few years. All activity will be figured out.

jeepmor
July 3, 2006, 01:02 AM
Gold will always be valuable. Maybe not in an SHTF scenario when supplies are paramount, not bling. But it's been the universal cash all through man's time and the basis of many economies is derived from their gold coffers.

I don't see it being as useful for barter as stated for people buying firearms should anarchy break out. However, the Wild West ran off of gold as their datum for exchange a long time before our government got around to standardizing the dollar. Gold created the biggest migration of mankind in history during the California Gold Rush less than 200 years ago.

Gold not worth what money is, come on people, once society settles down after our government collapses, gold will again be the standard. In times of great stress if you are in line to be on the collecting end of a lot of this gold, I beleive it would be a good thing.

But during time of great societal duress, (think LA riots and beyond) your safety will be more important than gold. And trading guns for gold may have not be the safest venture once word gets out that you have an armory and a safe full of gold in your basement. Could quickly go from assets to liabilities if anarchy last more than a month and word gets out where these libtards from Hollywood have gotten their guns. That last parts' a joke, kind of.

jeepmor

OldSchooler
July 3, 2006, 04:37 PM
I"ll try to spell it out plain. If the balloon goes up and society breaks down, I suspect there wont be much paying for anything - in gold or otherwise.

The scenario most people imagine in their mind is of some sort of gentle or Hollywood-esque collapse. Some here have broken it down into logical "degrees of breakdown," or tiers. In such scenarios, they inevitably "star" in their own version of "Paladin, Have Gun Will Travel". They're the Good Guy, of course, fighting and winning against the worst that mankind has to offer. That's human nature....

But in the real world of social collapse/upheaval/dismemberment, if someone knows you have weapons and they do not, two things will likely happen:

1. They will avoid you. That's Good.
2. They will attempt to take your weapons, one way or another. That's NOT good.

If they know you are armed and they are as well, then two things are likely:

1. They will avoid you. Even Better (since they are armed and desperate, just like you)
2. They will attempt to disarm you by any means and take your weapons. That's REAL Bad.

NOTE: Besides, "trading" for things like guns, as the original poster suggests only works in a civilized atmosphere. Does anyone remember the local gas pumps, whenever the supply has been threatened. Civility? Pleeeaase...

I'd like to suggest that you consider some alternate plans. Perhaps teaming up with like minded folks for mutual protection is one option - call it a gang if you want. Let's just hope the food doesn't run out too soon and you have enough of the right, stable sort of gangmembe--- er, "teammates" at your side.

Isolated seclusion is another option. However, unless you already ARE in the dark backlands of Wyoming and no one knows you are there, seclusion is a dream, the stuff of SOF backissues.

Oh, but it gets better. Remember, we're not really contemplating an Orwellian-style governmental takeover here. In that case, your guns will likely do little but get you in duece with those who are already better armed and organized than you can hope to be.

What all this academic discussion centers around is Breakdown. Rapid Breakdown. Compelling Upheaval Breakdown. In that case, what really matters is if you actually survive the collapse/cataclysm/ensuing anarchy. Guess what? Thats a long shot, as the median survival rate for most any calculated disaster scenario is rather low, whether you are armed or unarmed. Of course, we all believe we'll make it, right?

Whatever you choose to do for the long haul, for the short term I'd plan for gutwrenching, horrific, defecate-in-your-drawers survival if I were you. You can worry about becoming a weapons dealing, "New Age Donald Trump," later.

loadedround
July 3, 2006, 05:51 PM
I alos tink the medium of exchange may be ammunition, not guns if and when the SHTF. I can something like 5ea 22lr's for a fresh egg, 2 dz 38 spec's for a lb of flour, 1bx/357's for a botlle of Jack Daniels. I hink you can see where this scenaro is going;. keep your ammo stocks up!

kfranz
July 3, 2006, 06:22 PM
Think about someone who lives in a upper class suburb neighborhood, doesn't own any firearms, and the city proper is full or riots and fires and this chaos may be marching out from the city into the surrounding areas. It's not going to get better. The SHTF and the party's over.

You really think enough upper class suburbanites have ounces of gold lying around?
People don't get all crazy from not having ammo. They do from not having smokes and alcohol. Not sure how long the smokes will keep, but if you want a sure fire medium of exchange, load up on Jim Beam. Hmmm, that could be taken the wrong way I suppose, so let me rephrase. Buy extra bottles of Jim Beam for trade purposes.

OldSchooler
July 3, 2006, 10:53 PM
If you survive the breakdown, indeed, ammo and goodies like alcohol will be valued items. So will other medicines like antibiotics (available at any farm store for pigs). Hmmm what else? Gasoline maybe? Electrical generators w/ gasoline? Seeds and tools? I dunno.

But I like the idea of buying all the liquor you can in plastic bottles - the cheap stuff - and hoarding it. After the rioters and looters have trashed the liquor stores you could be sitting pretty.

Especially if you have the muscle and enough guns to protect your "wares."
Keep in mind that there wont be much in the way of law or enforcement of same other than the muzzle end of your gun.

GD
July 4, 2006, 11:14 AM
In a SHTF situation, who would sell their firearm to get gold or silver?

Gold and silver will not keep me alive but food, water, arms and other essentials will. Only a fool would give up an essential item during a SHTF situation to get gold or silver. Gold and silvers only value is in its anticipated value in procuring essential items. I only have a few silver coins for barter and it is only for the possibility that I might find such a fool during such times.

lysander
July 5, 2006, 12:44 PM
In a SHTF situation, who would sell their firearm to get gold or silver?

I think the idea would be to sell/trade some of your "excess" firearms in the event of some kind of breakdown. The speculative value of "cheapy" firearms after the balloon goes up.

It is undeniable that ammo, guns and other items mentioned (alcohol, medicine, etc) would be of high value in a time where survival needs are high. But even in that case...to make transactions and transportation easier...some form of currency would be in use fairly quickly.

...even if it was paper certificates issued by an organization like the Templars. We will hold your goodies hear in Bartertown...and you can cash this in for like value over at our Never-neverland branch. :p

akodo
July 6, 2006, 02:08 AM
regarding 'Gold will always be valuable' and 'But it's been the universal cash all through man's time'

respectfully I disagree. It so happens that certain early cultures in the fertile crescent lached onto gold, and as these cultures had profound impact on all of the old world, they were all more than happy to deal in gold. (although there were plenty of other scarce resources that were also used as handily as cash...salt for example...and gold wasn't always that valuable, right around christ's birth, silver was more valuable per ounce...but the wisemen brought him gold because it was 'kingly and governmental' as silver wasn't being used for coinage the way gold was)

however, there have been plenty of cultures far removed from the fertile crecent who even though they had access to gold, used other materials for currency. Gold was viewed pretty much like a nice red feather, makes a nice ornament to wear and look nice, but not terribly valuable, and not a universal medium of exchange.

Cosmoline
July 6, 2006, 02:26 AM
Ammunition and primers are probably a closer currency equivalent. Gold itself is almost never kept. People buy it and sell it without actually having it. And it's basically useless.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns as medium of exchange" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!