Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It still boils down to one question: Do you have a better chance for survival in a "bad social situation" in downtown LA or in a place like Park River, North Dakota? Be honest.
The road less traveled will always produce the greater survival chances if you’re prepared for that. The odds of a person in a remote area being in a situation required severe action will always be less because they are not where the issues are evolving.
But, when confronted with those situations, those in the urban areas have the greater chance of survival than those in the remote areas. This was painfully clear in Bosnia where the ratios of deaths were much higher in outlying areas than in the urban areas. We also see this in typical group to group confrontations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Urban areas may have more conflicts to address and more chances to be a target, but in rural areas you almost always will be a target and the outcome is almost always not to the defenders’ liking.
Would a group go out to invade that rural stash of can foods and some seeds? No, but if they are in the area they will see you as a target of opportunity and you probably will have something they want or can use. Pinning survival plans on they might walk by and ignore you isn’t that much of a plan. I also find many people in rural areas fall far short in the "HIDE" department. All to often their remoteness leads them to behave in such a way that they announce themselves to the whole area. They practically put out the welcome mat to invaders.
However, all of this is just an exercise in position statements because the factors of the conflict can alter the needs and survival plans. A person in an urban area will have a much better chance of survival if the cause of the conflict was a accidental release of mutant viruses that attacks vegetation from the remote R&D facility of a manufacture in that area. Being 100 miles from the disaster in a city is much better that being 20 miles from the disaster and depending on your vegetation for survival.
So bringing it back to my original statement, I don’t see anything that would say a person in the remote areas will fare better than a person in the rural areas when confronted with similar hostilities. Fifty armed people coming at you in the city is just as bad as 50 armed people coming at you in the woods.
The road less traveled will always produce the greater survival chances if you’re prepared for that. The odds of a person in a remote area being in a situation required severe action will always be less because they are not where the issues are evolving.
But, when confronted with those situations, those in the urban areas have the greater chance of survival than those in the remote areas. This was painfully clear in Bosnia where the ratios of deaths were much higher in outlying areas than in the urban areas. We also see this in typical group to group confrontations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Urban areas may have more conflicts to address and more chances to be a target, but in rural areas you almost always will be a target and the outcome is almost always not to the defenders’ liking.
Would a group go out to invade that rural stash of can foods and some seeds? No, but if they are in the area they will see you as a target of opportunity and you probably will have something they want or can use. Pinning survival plans on they might walk by and ignore you isn’t that much of a plan. I also find many people in rural areas fall far short in the "HIDE" department. All to often their remoteness leads them to behave in such a way that they announce themselves to the whole area. They practically put out the welcome mat to invaders.
However, all of this is just an exercise in position statements because the factors of the conflict can alter the needs and survival plans. A person in an urban area will have a much better chance of survival if the cause of the conflict was a accidental release of mutant viruses that attacks vegetation from the remote R&D facility of a manufacture in that area. Being 100 miles from the disaster in a city is much better that being 20 miles from the disaster and depending on your vegetation for survival.
So bringing it back to my original statement, I don’t see anything that would say a person in the remote areas will fare better than a person in the rural areas when confronted with similar hostilities. Fifty armed people coming at you in the city is just as bad as 50 armed people coming at you in the woods.
This is a reasonable post. But I still say there are "modifying factors" to your analysis. One of the biggies is location in relationship to major populations. And another is how much "space" there is out there that is relatively uninhabited. If you were a hungry bandito and you saw this directly outside your "hunted out" city:
...you might be inclined to wander around aimlessly, looking for a lucky strike. But, if you had to travel 200 miles over dirt roads to get to this place, I'd seriously doubt you would do it. The expected value of doing so is negative. Your potential gain (if you hit that lucky strike) would not make up for the resources you expended to get to this place.
(BTW, this county is very large and has a density of 1.9 people/sq mi (averaged). Almost all of them live on the eastern edge of the county in several farming communities and the "big city" of around 3000 people, and nearly nobody on the western side)
Going back to your post, personally, I would place a much higher priority on minimizing the probability of an encounter than I would prevailing in an encounter, should I have one. You don't have to win a war you didn't fight. We all have different views on the different possible strategies. But each of us has to consider personal strengths and weaknesses (yeah... a man's got to know his limitations ) . Rambo (or Clint) might prefer the chances of winning an encounter over minimizing the likelihood of an encounter. But for me personally, it's the other way around -- I've always been much better at disappearing.
My Dw describes it as 'Floyd's Barber Shop' [a reference from Mayberry]. Our town only has one store-front business, it is a gunsmith. He is only open one day/week. So the town's menfolk gather Wednesday mornings to discuss important events [which is mostly centered around the price of ammo and fur pelts].
Being somewhat 'rural' [we have around 10 people per-square-mile here so it is not entirely rural] I would say that by living here we form a 'tribe' of sorts. The fact that each of us chose to live here gives us a "common thread".
If you look, here in the USA there are vast stretches of rural land, where it is very likely you will find loose organizations today forming rural communities.
Maybe, maybe not. I sure hope you are right. I look at a lot of small towns out in the West and a lot of them are overridden with crime. The "frontier" counties (counties matching the pre-1890s definition of the frontier with less than two people per square mile) are possibly a different story. People there have to stick together. Although there are counties like Loving county in TX (the least populated in the lower USA) where locals do not get along so well.
The road less traveled will always produce the greater survival chances if you’re prepared for that. The odds of a person in a remote area being in a situation required severe action will always be less because they are not where the issues are evolving.
But, when confronted with those situations, those in the urban areas have the greater chance of survival than those in the remote areas. This was painfully clear in Bosnia where the ratios of deaths were much higher in outlying areas than in the urban areas. We also see this in typical group to group confrontations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Urban areas may have more conflicts to address and more chances to be a target, but in rural areas you almost always will be a target and the outcome is almost always not to the defenders’ liking.
The other thing to know is that not all large towns and small cities are cesspools of crime full of ghettos, drug dealers and armed gangs. This is another thing people on this forum love to perpetuate. Every city is bad by definition apparently.
The reason why cities fared better in Bosnia is probably the fact that these cities had hundreds+ years of experience in running their affairs in all sorts of conditions. 1990s is not the first time Bosnia saw war on its grounds and the cities survived in 1940-45, 1914-1918 and many more wars and conflicts before that. Even in a bloody civil war such as the Yugoslav one, it took a lot of effort to destroy the infrastructure and I am not convinced it was completely destroyed by the time the war was over.
I think you are full of BS. In many of your previous posts you stated that you hire out the labor for the majority of the stuff that you do on your property and I am very doubtful that you and your wife grow EVERYTHING needed to be completely self-sufficient in the harsh WY climate. Do you or don't you?
My guess is that you spent time in the corporate world making money and now you are living off that money in a "pretty place" but you are VERY far from being self sufficient. True or not?
Your question is meaningless. You don't understand what survivalism is or even the meaning of survival. Rest assured, it's not being a neolithic person or family living on the brink of death.
Your question is meaningless. You don't understand what survivalism is or even the meaning of survival. Rest assured, it's not being a neolithic person or family living on the brink of death.
Enlighten us please. After all this is a survival forum, I am hear to learn, Yoda!
In all seriousness, I have been building my self sufficiency skills. That includes doing more and more myself, not paying for someone to do stuff for me. In the hour of need, the people you have been paying may very well turn on you.
The other thing to know is that not all large towns and small cities are cesspools of crime full of ghettos, drug dealers and armed gangs. This is another thing people on this forum love to perpetuate. Every city is bad by definition apparently.
A town if 1,000 with 10% loss of life (100 people) isn’t going to get the attention that a City of 1,000,000 with only 1% loss of life (10,000) will get. Your odds of survival in the city is much greater proportionate to your odds in that smaller town. But it's not, Oh My God 10%! it will be Oh My God 10,000!
I have a belief that if faced with a major unrest and upheaval where social order is collapsing, these gangs and criminals will equally be in need of protecting themselves. They will have the rival gangs and criminals looking at their territory and resources. The threat of them screwing with the people just to mess and take, isn’t going to happen as many expect.
If you look at the CoG plans, one of the high threats isn’t from marauding gangs of criminals, it’s from the "militia" survival movement that placed too much emphasis on one resource and belief. That causes them to probably be so inadequate in many other areas they will be forced to go out and take because they were too narrow sighted to plan properly. So they will became the danger since they have the resources to raid. They are not going to go into the city because they know the Six Street Sombreros, the B Street Bling’s, and the Foo-Town Aikido’s will eat them up and spit their Toy Story butts out.
Let’s not forget that the first places for organized and government help will be the cities. As bad as Katrina was, help was pouring into New Orleans well before anyone even remembered the outlying areas.
A town if 1,000 with 10% loss of life (100 people) isn’t going to get the attention that a City of 1,000,000 with only 1% loss of life (10,000) will get. Your odds of survival in the city is much greater proportionate to your odds in that smaller town. But it's not, Oh My God 10%! it will be Oh My God 10,000!
I have a belief that if faced with a major unrest and upheaval where social order is collapsing, these gangs and criminals will equally be in need of protecting themselves. They will have the rival gangs and criminals looking at their territory and resources. The threat of them screwing with the people just to mess and take, isn’t going to happen as many expect.
If you look at the CoG plans, one of the high threats isn’t from marauding gangs of criminals, it’s from the "militia" survival movement that placed too much emphasis on one resource and belief. That causes them to probably be so inadequate in many other areas they will be forced to go out and take because they were too narrow sighted to plan properly. So they will became the danger since they have the resources to raid. They are not going to go into the city because they know the Six Street Sombreros, the B Street Bling’s, and the Foo-Town Aikido’s will eat them up and spit their Toy Story butts out.
Let’s not forget that the first places for organized and government help will be the cities. As bad as Katrina was, help was pouring into New Orleans well before anyone even remembered the outlying areas.
You know, as I've read some of your posts, I've seen some reasonable logic. But this post is completely off the rails.
Yes, because we all know that, even in the good times, criminals and gangs don't, in any way, molest or otherwise victimize the general populace.
There is a reason gangs and other criminals are called criminals. And it's not because they all get together and play bridge amongst themselves on weekends. You go ahead and continue to believe that the huge metro areas are beacons of safety. The rest of us don't mind. Yes, downtown Flint, MI is as safe as downtown Castle Dale, Utah. And will be even more so if things go to hell. Sure thing.
And if you think typical people who arm themselves for self-defense and stock up some extra living necessities for a rainy day are going to all-of-a-sudden become vicious murderous criminals when the rainy day comes, you're up in the night. You've seen The Purge one too many times.These people who have prepared are the people who DON'T WANT to be a burden on others in a bad event, just like those who carry a spare tire in their trunk in case they get a flat. They are the people who do not want become desperate. You're trying to use the big lib "let's turn everything around and make the good bad and bad good" tactic. It's obvious through your entire post here. You're using anti-logic, which is all too common these days.
In my neighborhood right now, today, I can tell you EXACTLY who would become a threat if their food, water, power, or whatever else got cut off for an extended time. I already know. And it certainly isn't going to be the families with food, water, and arms in their basements. I could go on to tell you who it would be specifically, but I don't want to be offensive. After all, we shouldn't "profile," right?
Yes, because we all know that, even in the good times, criminals and gangs don't, in any way, molest or otherwise victimize the general populace.
Have you actually lived in a city? Most areas in cities are safe. It is isolated sections that have crime. The role of police in this country has never been to exterminate crime (that would be impossible) - it was to separate it and confine it to specific areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
And if you think typical people who arm themselves for self-defense and stock up some extra living necessities for a rainy day are going to all-of-a-sudden become vicious murderous criminals when the rainy day comes, you're up in the night.
Many a "good man" had been involved in cattle wars, range wars, extermination of others throughout history. There is nothing that inherently makes a prepper "good".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
In my neighborhood right now, today, I can tell you EXACTLY who would become a threat if their food, water, power, or whatever else got cut off for an extended time. I already know. And it certainly isn't going to be the families with food, water, and arms in their basements. I could go on to tell you who it would be specifically, but I don't want to be offensive. After all, we shouldn't "profile," right?
I can do the same on my street and I could have done the same in my neighborhood when I lived in the city.
A town if 1,000 with 10% loss of life (100 people) isn’t going to get the attention that a City of 1,000,000 with only 1% loss of life (10,000) will get. Your odds of survival in the city is much greater proportionate to your odds in that smaller town. But it's not, Oh My God 10%! it will be Oh My God 10,000!
I have a belief that if faced with a major unrest and upheaval where social order is collapsing, these gangs and criminals will equally be in need of protecting themselves. They will have the rival gangs and criminals looking at their territory and resources. The threat of them screwing with the people just to mess and take, isn’t going to happen as many expect.
If you look at the CoG plans, one of the high threats isn’t from marauding gangs of criminals, it’s from the "militia" survival movement that placed too much emphasis on one resource and belief. That causes them to probably be so inadequate in many other areas they will be forced to go out and take because they were too narrow sighted to plan properly. So they will became the danger since they have the resources to raid. They are not going to go into the city because they know the Six Street Sombreros, the B Street Bling’s, and the Foo-Town Aikido’s will eat them up and spit their Toy Story butts out.
Let’s not forget that the first places for organized and government help will be the cities. As bad as Katrina was, help was pouring into New Orleans well before anyone even remembered the outlying areas.
One reason is the outlying areas have a lower populace.
Another is that they are better prepared to be self sufficient for longer.
My neighbors (and I use that term loosely... I could hear a gunshot, but probably not a scream) all have wells, generators, food, some have gardens, everyone is armed...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) . Rambo (or Clint) might prefer the chances of winning an encounter over minimizing the likelihood of an encounter. But for me personally, it's the other way around -- I've always been much better at disappearing.
