Fascinating. I love this stuff. I used to do this as a kid in Northwest Florida. Many shell middens, and some other stuff. We notified a local university, but they had no interest in most of it, until we found evidence of Spanish occupation. Then we were chased out. Even found some Central American jade in there.

Yep, fascinating is the word I have for the story of Juana Maria, too. Thanks, hikermor, for expanding my horizon. As I read the story of the lone woman, I couldn't help but feel a great deal of sympathy for her. Her people were decimated by outsiders and forced to relocate. She got left behind on the island for eighteen years! Then when she was finally rescued, nobody spoke her language anymore because her tribe had perished. And yet, somehow, she retained a positive mindset. Apparently she sang quite often, and had a cheery disposition. Perhaps that's how she got through those 18 years?

Please alert us when your wife's research comes out.

I will do so. Her stuff will appear on the link to Channel islands Nat'l Park website referenced above. I continue to be amazed at the interest in The Lone Woman's story, but it indeed is an epic.

One reason no one could talk with her is that her people were taken to Los Angeles and when she came off, she went to Santa Barbara, where the natives spoke an entirely different language.

In the days before the 101, it was quite a trip between LA and St Barb, and no one made the trip.....

And you remember those days, don't you?

IMHO, it would be prudent to be equipped with firearms and a generous supply of ammo, for both hunting and for self defence.

However as others have already posted, in MOST survival situations other supplies are of more use.
Food, water, first aid supplies, map and compass, footwear, blankets, spare clothing and other supplies are likely to be of more use.
Unless you are in a war zone of course.

I would suggest that where legal, a pistol should be carried, and spare handguns plus rifles or shotguns or preferably both should be secured at home and carried when needed.
A choice of weapons gives redundancy in case of breakdown

I have my doubts about the viability of any gun involving black powder or muzzle loading, both can be interesting challenges whilst times are normal, but for emergencies I would have more faith in a large stock of modern cartridges.

I have read factual accounts from survivors of a recent conflict in eastern Europe, all refer to the scarcity of ammunition.

The more sensible and believable doomer novels also refer to ammunition becoming scarce.

Here in the UK a shotgun is relatively easy to lawfully obtain, other firearms are much more tightly controlled.
I have fired a handgun on a range, but lawful private possession of such a weapon is almost unknown.

Muzzleloaders have been used for hunting for centuries. They still are used successfully. They are not that hard to manage when you have some experience with it.
I agree that they may not be the weapon of choice when there are alternatives. In Germany muzzleloaders (with a few exceptions) are not regulated very tightly. You may not carry them but you can legally buy and own them without permits or registration when you are at least 18 y.o..



That would be a valid reason to prefer a shotgun. Regulations have an impact on preparation for emergencies.

Do we know this for sure? If you're an individual in a war zone, I'd think you'd have to practice evasion/avoidance of conflict. You can't fight a whole army. You don't want to be mistaken as a combatant or, worse, an agent or spy, and a firearm may suggest that. It seems the primary use might be the same as in civilian life -- self-protection against robbers.

This is just my reaction, of course. We need some actual data. Do we have any actual studies of what happens in a modern war zone? I have the impression that in some places (like Afghanistan) small arms are plentiful. Do civilians fleeing hot areas normally carry AKs?

I'm inclined to agree with your thinking. In a weapons free environment, being identified as armed, and not confirmed as a friendly, is a good way to get shot.

Having a pistol tucked under your jacket may be advisable, or not, depending on security checkpoints. But, I wouldn't go around obviously armed.

I haven't been able to find if scavenging guns is common practice during the initial flight. I daresay that the first smuggler or refugee camp you arrive at will confiscate any you have.

There are historical examples of successful carry of muzzleloaders in conflicts. In my family we still retain the "Yankee Cannon," a model 1842 muzzle loading single shot percussion cap pistol carried by my paternal great grandfather during a little skirmish known as Shiloh in 1862. He was a lad of twenty at the time and a civilian non combatant. His Dad was a farmer and itinerant preacher, conducting services every third Sunday at Shiloh chapel. I don't know if Gread GrandDad ever fired his weapon in anger, but he survived, unlike many others in that conflict. A ML must be better than nothing...

A much better sidearm at that time would have been a six shot revolver -"shot every day of the week and reloaded on Sunday"

FWIW: When refugees claiming to come from Syria arrived in Germany quite a few had full auto rifles and semi-auto handguns with them. Some of them even carried more than one. The guns where confiscated by the police at border crossings and train stations where the refugees arrived.
That indicates that having those guns is fairly common and it seems to be possible to keep them even on a longer journey. The persons who had the guns probably did not trust a smuggler or a refugee camp.