You can't take it with you

I recently had a conversation with a co-worker who owns a lot more firearms than me. When asked whether I'd gotten any "new toys" over the break, I said no, I "have enough already." This was met with a mildly derisive chuckle and the declaration that "no you don't."

I retorted with "I already own more than I can carry."

The response I got from him was "I don't plan on walking anywhere."

Now, I quickly realized how stupid I had been and adjusted my responses in the conversation going forward, because you can tell where this would have ended up had I continued as I started. Too quickly I forget that other people aren't interested in a practical discussion, but are more often than not just seeking validation in some form or another.

When it comes to emergency or disaster preparedness, one of the biggest mistakes you can make is investing considerable time and energy into only one possible outcome. It's easy to do, because most folks don't talk about the presumptions going into their assertions, they just take a stance and then challenge anyone to take them on.

For example, preparing for a flood is different than preparing for war.

Preparing for a nuclear blast is different than preparing for an economic collapse.

In every "End Of The World As We Know It" scenario, there are going to be different skills, tools, and mindsets required in order to increase your odds of surviving, let alone thriving.

The simplest example of this is in how people try to decide whether they'll "bug out" or stay put in a time or crisis. Why you would do one or the other will be based on a large number of variables, yet folks want to ignore such subtlety to instead claim that there is a single correct answer, instead of addressing the fact that all they're doing is changing how the odds look for them under a given set of circumstances.

If there is nuclear fallout in the air, traveling is probably not going to be a good idea, likewise if there are foreign armies on the march.

If your house has just been washed down the river, or been burned by rioters, your only choice is to travel.

If you are only prepared for one, you'll be screwed if the other occurs.

If you are relying on a huge arsenal, you'll be screwed if you lose it.

If you are relying on not having a huge arsenal, you'll be screwed by anyone who has held onto one.

The frustration with the conversation, and how many of these conversations end up going, is that folks presume they can predict the future, and have then planned for that future, and have pride in how well they've planned for that future. It's not a scientific thing, it's an emotional thing, because nobody can really predict the future with any great degree of reliability.

If your plan is to be the neighborhood warlord, do you keep yourself armed enough to fight back into your neighborhood? Unless you work from home, or carry around said arsenal with you at all times, you're going to be in scenarios where you don't have the tools and resources you expected to have, and you still need to act. You can't just tell everyone to wait while you get ready.

It can be entertaining to discuss things as if all of our plans will be successful, but nowhere in life is anyone so. In FOREX, for example, one is a great success if 51% of the trades done are profitable. Listen to stories of entrepreneurs about their success rate with inventions and start-ups.

Most plans fail miserably, or are thrown away quickly, so instead of investing yourself into a single plan, develop the skills to create new plans. Don't get really good at implementing one plan, but get good at the "OODA" loop. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.

Then, invest in tools, devices, and skills that support such circumstantial flexibility. People and circumstances can take away what you have, but neither of those can change what you know, or what you can do.

Don't brag about how well you've prepared for what you think will happen, but in how well you can react to the unexpected and still come out on top.