guns? Y2K. GUNS! : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I was talking to the Baron the other day and he mentioned a shotgun derringer. What? Yeah, has two 410 shells and fits in your hand. A few threads below, some of the denial-heads are ripping into paul milne. The idea is, why get ready for something unlikely.

This isn't about how unlikely, this is about how much effort to invest in getting ready.

Why do we have a military? Why nukes, aircraft carriers, MIRV'ed ICBMs? Because there is a chance that we'll need them.

Billions for defense and if I buy a few cans of tuna for 84 cents, tuna that I love eating, I'm a hysterical doomster?

Now we're getting shills for the banking industry screaming in terror to Ann Landers, no problems with banks, keep your money in banks, your money is safe in banks.

Banks, I love em. I'll write more about banking at when I'm good and ready.

Right now, I overate at "the Number-1 Chinese" restaurant and I'm feeling woozy, torpid, I need a nap.

-- cory (, April 24, 1999


Prudence is the better part of good judgement. I choose to ignore the shills and use the excellent conversation here to rationalize as I prepare. I don't like to see others waste time arguing with dumbasses. But if it's therapy well then go ahead I guess. Perhaps I will learn how to convince those around me who refuse to acknowledge their lack of understanding? Tips anyone please? You know what I'm talking about; "that won't happen" says the sister-in-law in her $200 nightie snuggled into her half million dollar urban mansion.

-- Will (, April 24, 1999.

RE: "Now we're getting shills for the banking industry screaming in terror to Ann Landers, no problems with banks, keep your money in banks, your money is safe in banks."

Wasn't it somewhere in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, 'If you really want to reassure me, stop reassuring me so much.' or words similar.

-- Ken Seger (, April 25, 1999.

Clearly a rip off of the Shakespearean, "Methinks thou doth protest too much"


-- chuck, a Night Driver (, April 25, 1999.

those .410 derringers are terrible!! The recoil is so sharp into a nerve bundle in the palm that I couldn't make a fist for two minuets!! those guns are strictly for the fetishist gun type who's facinated with more compact and larger and larger calibre rather than functionality. For average y2k prep.a .357saturday night special is functionaly just as concealable,costs less,and allows follow up shots without having to switch hands.and prioritize buying a shotgun over buying a handgun

-- zoobie (, April 25, 1999.

zoobie, I agree with the recoil. I believe that gun was designed as a small carry snake gun. If push comes to shove, 2 shots at close range with a 410 gives good defensive coverage, time to run, and then while catching your breath, practice making a fist. The thing I don't like about the 410 derringer is the skin it removes from the back of my finger that rests behing the trigger. The kick of this little giant cuts down on using it for recreational shooting.

-- daryl (, April 25, 1999.

$200 nightie?

-- Spidey (in@jam.cjom), April 25, 1999.

Yet another bulletproof argument [g]. If bankers attempt to reassure us, they're "screaming in terror." If they *don't* attempt to reassure us, they have something to hide. Heads I win, tails you lose. Our "learn-proofing" has become airtight. We win!

-- Flint (, April 25, 1999.

I swapped my .410/.45 colt derringer off about a year ago. There are times that I miss it. I carried it for several years. The recoil was rather severe, but manageable. I preferred to shoot the .45 long colts in it for practice, though. A little milder. I could fire about 4-6 shots before shooting "accurately" was hampered by pain.

Interestingly, the 255 grain soft-nose lead .45 colts hit sideways 9 times out of 10, while the shotshells spread at a pattern of about 45 degrees.

Standing behind it when it went off wasn't all that much fun. I would NOT want to stand in front of it...

-- Scott (, April 25, 1999.

Flint: Yet another bulletproof argument [g]. If bankers attempt to reassure us, they're "screaming in terror." If they *don't* attempt to reassure us, they have something to hide. Heads I win, tails you lose. Our "learn-proofing" has become airtight. We win!

Nope, that's not the point. I expect that after I say this, the bankers will go, like Duhhhh? and start parroting my words.

Here's what they should say, "In general, we expect our primary systems to work correctly. However, the banking industry started working on Y2K later than we should have. Many systems have not been tested as thoroughly as we would have liked. Our bank has invested xxx million dollars in repairing and testing our systems. The firm of BBBB has audited our efforts and CCCC corp is responsible for independently verifying that our systems will work correctly. Both firms have done an outstanding job. BBBB began work in 199X and completed the task in 199Y, CCCC corp stated in 199X and is still assisting us. We expect them to be done in XXX 1999."

"As of xxxx, 199X, our primary software systems corrected and were returned to production."

"As a customer, you should keep and double check all financial records. We will have additional staff on duty to assist you in the event that unforeseen errors occur. We have increased our available cash holdings and will be open extended hours during the Y2K transition."

"While we do not believe that it is necessary for you to withdraw large sums of money, we understand that some people may feel reassured if they are less dependent on 'electronic' money. We have prepared a brochure detailing our concerns and some simple measures that you might take to include: prepaying bills, holding some reserves as travelers checks, bank drafts, or other negotiable paper."

...and so on.

This would reassure me. Come clean, admit the problem, help us deal with it.

-- cory (, April 25, 1999.

Jest pushin' th' ol broom tonight.


-- chuck, a Night Driver (, April 25, 1999.

and again.


-- chuck, a Night Driver (, April 25, 1999.


I admit I have trouble with this formulation. First, Gary North would take this material and headline it something like Bank Admits Truth - No Hope! His spin intro would use the word "systemic" at least three times.

Then, the Yourdonites here would march around all night with the North treatment in one hand and a torch in the other, crowing their victory and lashing out at anyone dumb enough to be 'reassured' by such an admission.

And what if the bank sincerely believed their problems were solved? Should they concoct possible (however unlikely) problem scenarios in order to sound more 'forthcoming'?

I don't know if I'd be more reassured if banks listed all the problems their testing encountered and remediated, or if they just reported that they're in good shape and their (named) auditing partners agreed. But maybe you're right. I doubt any bank would take that risk, and I can understand why.

-- Flint (, April 25, 1999.

Flint- Here's a nice simple answer for you- if you aren't worried about your money in the bank, leave it there. If you are worried, take some of it out. If you tell others to leave their money in the bank, and it turns out they they can't get to it, they're going to be a little ticked off at you. If you tell others to take their money out, and it gets stolen, they're going to be a little ticked off at you.

I'll have some money out of the bank- not saying how much. I will absolutely not give any advice to any friends and relatives about money and banks. Let 'em figure it out for themselves.

-- Robert Sturgeon (, April 25, 1999.

Thanks for closing the bold...

To Flint, sure. If the bank truly believes that they are done, they can say so. But they're not done. You and I know it because we read the Time Machine reports. The fact is, the stories from the shills are getting better.

Lookit, US business spends more time spinning the stories v. actually doing the work. It's called management, planning; I call it sitting around and pretending to work. I've held enough executive jobs that I know the scam.

It's time for time to come clean which will prevent the panic. I think traveler's checks are a good alternative to cash during the rollover. Some metal, some cash, etc.

These are not overall solutions and don't address the store of wealth problem or the complete melt down scenario. These are not viable for all.

We don't know what will happen, it is prudent to prepare for a wide variety of scenarios. More in a future WRP (if I get around to it.)

-- cory (, April 26, 1999.

...wish I had money to take out of the banks....I'd buy more beans........

-- zoobie (, April 26, 1999.

I wish the jerk who posts the worthless SPAM at the bottom of the page could AT LEAST get the pixels right!!

-- K Stevens (K, April 26, 1999.

That's no jerk, that's our enabler, Phil G., who has written a very cool travel book which you can find by following the worthless spam at the bottom of the pages...

-- Blue Himlayan (bh@k2.y), April 26, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ