IMHO - I believe that the #1 item on a survival list is a weapon.

A good way to prepare for future emergencies is to list the threats and the corresponding solutions. The RULE OF 3 categorizes threats by the time they can greatly effect you. With this kind of thinking in place, you will respond to threats in the correct sequence. THE RULE OF 3 is often summarized that you can die from: blood loss in 3 seconds, air loss in 3 minutes, heat loss in 3 hours, water loss in 3 days, food loss in 3 weeks, shelter loss in 3 months and health loss in 3 years.

The defensive weapon addresses the immediate threat -

FEAR OF LIFE
FEAR OF GREAT BODILY INJURY
SEXUAL ASSAULT
SEXUAL ASSAULT OF ANOTHER

These four threats occur many times in our lives.

Some times returning fire is more important than starting one.

A thought provoking planning list may be of interest. GOOGLE : "AMERICAN SURVIVAL CHECKLIST"

Yes, a knife has been one of the most basic survival items since prehistory and has many uses.

Although I suspect you're referring to a firearm <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Who came up with these summaries? Blood loss in 3 seconds??? That would be one helluva wound to bleed you out that fast! And you won't die from lack of shelter. You might die from some type of exposure to cold, heat, rain or wind aggrevated by a lack of shelter, but it's not the missing shelter in-and-of itself that kills you. Some situations without shelter might well kill you in an hour (naked in a blizzard in Antartica comes to mind). I can also think of lots of "health loss" issues that could take you out much quicker than 3 years.

When I first heard the "rule of threes" it was 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. It does seem to have grown a bit into a rather unwieldy monster. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I don't buy it, at least not in the context of ETS.

Entering my 48th year of life I've been attacked by birds, had to beat off some dogs with a stick, been kicked by my horse, fell through ice, had my canoe swamped by a Mississippi River barge, run away from angry bees, and been harrassed by mean 8th grade girls (when I was in 6th grade), but I have yet to have returned fire in order to save my life, nor do I know anyone who has (excluding military service).

To be clear, I enjoy firearms as much as the next guy. I have a safe with several rifles, shotguns, and a few pistols, but they are for hunting and target shooting, but not self defense. Only if there was absolutely no chance of young children being in my home (I have two kids) would I consider having a gun outside my safe. I have never carried a firearm with me while camping or backpacking.

Your rule of 3's is wrong;
3 minutes without air.
3 hours without shelter in a harsh environment.
3 days without water.
3 weeks without food.

I love guns but I think your theory is flawed. Even in hightened danger camouflage and subterfuge might be better approaches. The gun is a last choice; you seem to have put it first.

Maybe we should append

0.003 seconds without adequate protection from a nuclear blast

to the start of that list <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

No offense intended here, it just seems to me that that list of 3s while useful, has to be balanced against the likelihood of the results. For example, the shelter requirement is void if you are in a very mild climate: 350 days of the year I could make it just fine in the woods near where I live without shelter of any kind. The same with the guns - if you need one, you DO need it, but the question is how many survival situations will you find yourself in when you are under armed attack?

For the weight, I'd argue that its much better (generally speaking) to carry a PLB instead of a .45. Not nearly as much fun to play with, of course.

Downside of all this is that, if you are being attacked, and are alone, and return fire against more than one individual, chances are, your survival situation wont last too long.
Dont get me wrong; I am a gun-toting American, but I believe responsibility is the key here. Shooting (or ANY violence, for that matter) someone should be done AS A LAST RESORT. You are the one who has to live with your concience for the rest of your life; personally, I would have a hard time drawing down on someone unless the circumstances were pretty dire. I think that, with your post, you are thinking WWIII scenario. Chances are, if that happens, most civilians, and probably most everyone else, will be pretty much wiped out.
KAtrina was an excellent example of this. There were rampant shootings, violence, and general chaos. This included law enforcement personnel. Ask yourself; what do you benefit by remaining in the area? Some jamoke will likely plug you in the back. You walk around with your iron visible, acting all tough-guy, chances are someone's gonna take you up on it. And, in all likelihood, they wont be alone.
In a disaster area, where law and order is temporarily suspended, your best bet is to hunker down, with others if feasible, and wait it out. Personal defense is fine; just dont be shooting every yahoo who comes through your door. Eventually, order will be restored, and I guarantee you will be held responsible for your actions.

Roger that!

You never know what the threat will be; nature or natives.

Theres another 3 second rule, the time it takes me to deal with posts and posters that slip in .com commercial links. Firearms are part of this forum's discussion. They are not the main thrust of Doug's efforts.