I do understand, out of my friends and family I’m the most prepared. I constantly go out to the middle of nowhere and put my skills to the test. Just for argument sake, but what if someone is more equipped than you? What if someone else is better prepared ie: more knowledgeable, more practical experience, time in the field putting skills to use than all others in your group? What then, does it mean that you would sideline someone more equipped mentally than you and all others to lead over your own pride?, Or would you go against what you have said and actually not jeopardize your groups well being and let the more experienced person led. To give your group the best possible chance of survival, or would you possibly condemn your loved ones and friends to a fate of death or even worse over your pride?
Survivalists' concerns and preparations have changed over the years. During the 1970s, fears were economic collapse, hyperinflation, and famine. Preparations included food storage and survival retreats in the country which could be farmed. Some survivalists stockpiled precious metals and barterable goods (such as common-caliber ammunition) because they assumed that paper currency would become worthless. During the early 1980s, nuclear war became a common fear, and some survivalists constructed fallout shelters.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in their "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign says that "the public should report only suspicious behavior and situations...rather than beliefs, thoughts, ideas, expressions, associations, or speech...". However, it is alleged that a DHS list of the characteristics of potential domestic terrorists used in law enforcement training includes "Survivalist literature (fictional books such as Patriots and One Second After are mentioned by name)", "Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)", and "Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)".