Questions for survivalists

[Damocles]

And the captains of industry are what? oh yeah, the ones who control the government.

If they allow themselves to be in bed with looters they too would be looters. Companies that gain government subsidy, or an undue contract, or a set regulation that would limit their competition... All of these would be looters.

 

[/MSG/]

If things don't return to normal quickly how are the masses going to survive? There's no game to hunt in cities. It takes months to grow food. Unless one has a bunker/panic room they won't survive. The mob will attack. It's either attack or do nothing and die from starvation.

The masses won't survive.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you think liberal/socialist/statist community oriented persons with hungry children are not going to try to get food if they believe you have some? Do you think the liberal/socialist/statist community oriented neighbors are not going to help them?

Taking into account mob mentality you best take into account that once you fire that first shot you're a marked man.

First of all, how would they know I had some? I hadn't planned on cooking in the front yard. My door is barred and I am prepared to defend my home. That you think that people who failed to plan ahead deserve an equal share of what I had the foresight to store speaks volumes. I spent money on canned foods to store. They spent money on something else. Bad choices on their part, I would say.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only if the survivalist neighbors shoot first. The folks who require help will just be knocking on doors.

What is telling is it appears the survivalists would see children die rather than share if your posts are an accurate representation.

The situation would dictate whether I answer my door or not. If not, they would try to break in.

I would prefer that everyone store away some food and necessities. Your remark accusing us of preferring to see children die rather than share is emotional drivel.

If I share to save this child, the next day I have more families with children begging for food. And then more and more and more. Until I am out of food and my own children starve.

 

[WinterBorn]

Awesome.


Just like the gunlover cult, survivalists are totally possessed by fear.

And people with smoke alarms, fire extinguishers and homeowners insurance are living in fear?

 

[WinterBorn]

Survivalists in urban and suburban areas won't have a chance. To paraphrase George-the Wild West cowboy-Bush, "We'll smoke 'em out. Hee. Hee. Hee."

Living in a rural area, that is not really a concern of mine. But I disagree with you. If someone has taken the time and forethought to store items, they would probably have prepared a way to make their home defensible. Yes, I am sure they could be burned out. But that is not the action of someone desperately trying to feed a child. That is the action of a vindictive asshole who wants to destroy what they cannot have.

 

[WinterBorn]

If things don't return to normal quickly how are the masses going to survive? There's no game to hunt in cities. It takes months to grow food. Unless one has a bunker/panic room they won't survive. The mob will attack. It's either attack or do nothing and die from starvation.

Its either attack and die for sure, or go somewhere else and search for less dangerous food.

 

[WinterBorn]

The biggest thing that the "people will take your supplies" advocates are forgetting is that we who prepared for this have done a fair amount of thinking about all the possibilities.

We prepared for them.



Suppose the world collapsed tomorrow. The grocery stores are empty in 2 days, and the food taken is gone by the end of the week. Except for those who have stored significant supplies, the suburbs and urban areas are out of food within 2 weeks. Now, without food howlong will the mob remain active and coherent? 3 weeks? A month? Suppose I hole up with my family for 6 weeks with no visible light and no activity? After that, we are still well fed and well rested. The mob is weak, disorganized and dying.

Not a serious threat.

 

[WinterBorn]

Apple, suppose we who have prepared for a catastrophic event, do as you say or suggest?

I have my stores, and the first group with children get food. Do they leave and go somewhere else? No, they stay where there is food and hope to survive on my goodwill.

Now, suppose I live in an area with a population of 150k people. How long will my stores last? 3 days? A week? And then what? Do I pass out my guns and ammo and join the mob looking to raid someone else's stored supplies?

And if we don't find any, do my wife and daughter get taken away by men who have my guns? Do we all just roam around looking for the next handout until the gov't gets back on its feet and helps us?



The sad part is, with all of the overabundance in this nation, we have forgotten how to prepare for the bad times. All grasshoppers and no ants mean starvation in short order.

 

[apple0154]

First of all, how would they know I had some? I hadn't planned on cooking in the front yard. My door is barred and I am prepared to defend my home. That you think that people who failed to plan ahead deserve an equal share of what I had the foresight to store speaks volumes. I spent money on canned foods to store. They spent money on something else. Bad choices on their part, I would say.

When people are starving what's right and wrong makes little difference.

As for them knowing what you have once the store shelves become empty groups of people will band together to try and survive just like humans did thousands of years ago. In urban and suburban areas they will pool their resources. If someone does not answer their door they will try to break in thinking the house is empty and salvage what they can. If someone refuses to open their home or starts shooting that's just as good as saying, "Hey, I have lots of food in here." That's when the "games" begin.

One or two people will not hold off a crowd of 50 or 100 hungry folks especially if they have young children. People will try to get in 24 hours a day or set the house on fire. They have nothing to lose and there's no one more dangerous than a person who has nothing to lose.

It will only be possible to hold out for a short period, maybe a few weeks, at most.

 

[apple0154]

The situation would dictate whether I answer my door or not. If not, they would try to break in.

I would prefer that everyone store away some food and necessities. Your remark accusing us of preferring to see children die rather than share is emotional drivel.

If I share to save this child, the next day I have more families with children begging for food. And then more and more and more. Until I am out of food and my own children starve.

Emotional drivel or not the person with the starving child is not thinking about who is going to eat next week. It's all about today and to believe hungry mobs are just going to pass your house by is wishful thinking.

 

[apple0154]

Living in a rural area, that is not really a concern of mine. But I disagree with you. If someone has taken the time and forethought to store items, they would probably have prepared a way to make their home defensible. Yes, I am sure they could be burned out. But that is not the action of someone desperately trying to feed a child. That is the action of a vindictive asshole who wants to destroy what they cannot have.

Maybe so but there will be plenty of vindictive assholes in the crowd. Like in any other circumstance the more one tries to protect something the more others imagine there's lots to protect. The word will quickly get around that the house at a certain location must have a large stash of supplies.

The bottom line being the hungry, the thugs, the assholes have nothing to lose. If one is not sharing the gang may as well burn the place to the ground. And let's not forget the person in the house is probably in touch with other survivalists via radio. Once they hear the crackling of the fire and then dead air.....they may think twice when people come a-callin'.

 

[apple0154]

Apple, suppose we who have prepared for a catastrophic event, do as you say or suggest?

I have my stores, and the first group with children get food. Do they leave and go somewhere else? No, they stay where there is food and hope to survive on my goodwill.

Now, suppose I live in an area with a population of 150k people. How long will my stores last? 3 days? A week? And then what? Do I pass out my guns and ammo and join the mob looking to raid someone else's stored supplies?

And if we don't find any, do my wife and daughter get taken away by men who have my guns? Do we all just roam around looking for the next handout until the gov't gets back on its feet and helps us?

The sad part is, with all of the overabundance in this nation, we have forgotten how to prepare for the bad times. All grasshoppers and no ants mean starvation in short order.

I agree people should be prepared for a short period of strife and most suburban folks probably have sufficient food for a couple of weeks. After that they'll have no idea what to do.

Personally, I don't think anything will happen on a large scale. Even if the economy collapses the food is still growing, the farm animals still eating, the trucks still running....The point being there is no reason for further collapse. The farms, the transport companies....everyone involved in the production and distribution of food will have no choice but the continue whether or not they are paid. The government simply confiscates what it needs to keep order. If the farmer does not sell his goods to the distributors for whatever reason the government simply takes them and the same thing down the line until the food hits the grocery store. People will be working for food.

It's not the same as if there was a natural disaster. While there may be a shortage of money there will be no shortage of food.

Finally, the government either restores order quickly or a foreign power will invade. People will turn on their own government and welcome a ship load of food from foreign sources. Watching ones child die due to government incompetence while another child is saved by a foreign power supplying food and medicine is a powerful incentive to change allegiances.

 

[WinterBorn]

When people are starving what's right and wrong makes little difference.

As for them knowing what you have once the store shelves become empty groups of people will band together to try and survive just like humans did thousands of years ago. In urban and suburban areas they will pool their resources. If someone does not answer their door they will try to break in thinking the house is empty and salvage what they can. If someone refuses to open their home or starts shooting that's just as good as saying, "Hey, I have lots of food in here." That's when the "games" begin.

One or two people will not hold off a crowd of 50 or 100 hungry folks especially if they have young children. People will try to get in 24 hours a day or set the house on fire. They have nothing to lose and there's no one more dangerous than a person who has nothing to lose.

It will only be possible to hold out for a short period, maybe a few weeks, at most.

Depending on the nature of the crisis, sharing my larder could mean starvation for my family. So I will be just as desperate but better equipped. A few weeks is an eternity if you have no food at all. By then the crowds will be too week to do much.

And yes, I do believe a small group can hold off 50 or 100 people. Yes they have superior numbers. But the doorways are small, so that numerical superiority is only good if we are in the open.

They will not stay long if their numbers are dropping from gunfire and they cannot fight back.

 

[WinterBorn]

Emotional drivel or not the person with the starving child is not thinking about who is going to eat next week. It's all about today and to believe hungry mobs are just going to pass your house by is wishful thinking.

No, not wishful thinking. The logic of a parent who knows my child is doomed if anything happens to me.

 

[apple0154]

Depending on the nature of the crisis, sharing my larder could mean starvation for my family. So I will be just as desperate but better equipped. A few weeks is an eternity if you have no food at all. By then the crowds will be too week to do much.

And yes, I do believe a small group can hold off 50 or 100 people. Yes they have superior numbers. But the doorways are small, so that numerical superiority is only good if we are in the open.

They will not stay long if their numbers are dropping from gunfire and they cannot fight back.

A couple of these

landing on a roof like this

or a window like this

and it will just be a matter of waiting.

 

[WinterBorn]

One garden hose with a sprinkler on my roof will minimize the damages.

Hell, they could even be helping me out. If the fire damages are minimized by the water they will still look serious, and the house will look abandoned.

It will also depend on the arm strength of the thrower. I can shoot farther then he can throw.

 

[apple0154]

One garden hose with a sprinkler on my roof will minimize the damages.

Hell, they could even be helping me out. If the fire damages are minimized by the water they will still look serious, and the house will look abandoned.

It will also depend on the arm strength of the thrower. I can shoot farther then he can throw.

"I can shoot farther then he can throw."

But are you as accurate?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Fear. Paranoia. Greed. Hostility. Self-justification.


Survivalists are just like the GOP, aren't they?

 

[WinterBorn]

"I can shoot farther then he can throw."

But are you as accurate?

Far MORE accurate. In fact, I'd be willing to bet my daughter could hit the flying bottle 8 or 9 times out of 10. I assure you I could score a torso hit much farther than a man can throw a flaming bottle.