# Non-Violent Defense?



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OK, y'all know what caused me to start this thread. 

Non-violent defense? How, exactly, would one defend one's stand against the armed and unprepared mob who is bent on taking what's yours?


----------



## 15yrs off grid (Jan 25, 2014)

hide well with 2 dozen or more of your closet companions.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

15yrs off grid said:


> hide well with 2 dozen or more of your closet companions.


That sounds really good - in general and theory. That won't stop those searching. If there is a road to travel, the mobs will go. If it is countryside, it will be assumed that there are goods to be had. All it will take is one fire burned in the daytime to alert those looking. The desperate won't be deterred by branches across the dirt road. Strength, and as you said, numbers, can repel an assault; assuming everyone is trained and working as a unit.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

The best defense is a good offense. Tell them to leave politely, if they don't, kill every SOB in the room and reclaim your stuff, then reload. Repeat as necessary! Not violence, just protecting what is mine and stopping them from using violence to steal what doesn't belong to them.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

If I have to defend myself I will be as violent as I possibly can be.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

ekim said:


> The best defense is a good offense. Tell them to leave politely, if they don't, kill every SOB in the room and reclaim your stuff, then reload. Repeat as necessary! Not violence, just protecting what is mine and stopping them from using violence to steal what doesn't belong to them.


I don't want to ever hurt anyone, again. The older I get, the more I feel for others. Even those people I detest have vulnerabilities, fears and concerns. Somewhere, someone loves them.
That being said, once someone finds you and realizes you have what they need or want, you and your family is in danger. It's just a matter of time until they come creeping back in the early hours.


----------



## specknowsbest (Jan 5, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> If I have to defend myself I will be as violent as I possibly can be.


This. When threatened by others, the best way to ensure that you are never threatened again is to use as much force and be as violent as you possibly can be.

That said, when I hear "Non-violent defense" I think of things like barbed wire, fences, thorned plantlife, rough terrain, etc. Those forms of defense though cannot be ideally maintained against a mob, and will only serve as obstacles that slow them down. Eventually, you'll have to pull the trigger, it's just best to make sure your targets are as slow moving and worn out as possible before they get to you.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm sorry this is beyond my ability. If a unruly mob comes anywhere near me and mine instinct won't let me do anything but be coldly violent to them.


That's the way it should be to me too. Kill em, cut em up into steaks, season and throw em on the grill.





.


----------



## 15yrs off grid (Jan 25, 2014)

Early warning system a must.

Trade in the cat for a 45lb outside dog and one inside lap dog. Best alarm system a man can have. Not too big so the food amount is reasonable.

But if a mob makes it that far hunger and thirst will make people fearless. When the lap dog barks because he hears the big dog bark once just before they stab him. Grab your protection and head for high ground.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

15yrs off grid said:


> Early warning system a must.
> 
> Trade in the cat for a 45lb outside dog and one inside lap dog. Best alarm system a man can have. Not too big so the food amount is reasonable.
> 
> But if a mob makes it that far hunger and thirst will make people fearless. When the lap dog barks because he hears the big dog bark once just before they stab him. Grab your protection and head for high ground.


Your protection? What protection? High ground? I won't be on low ground in the first place. Actually, I might be as I am the big dog in the woods at night. The bark will be a rifle report. There won't be small lap dogs that will back me up, either.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Besides trying to keep a very low profile, I intend to hang this on my front door.
View attachment 4135


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Where can I get a couple of those signs, but for KY?


----------



## Space (Mar 14, 2013)

Actually I'm planning on joining the mob of hungry people. There's what, like a hundred thousand preppers in the country and like four hundred million unprepared people? Good luck against those odds. Donner Party 2014!


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Space said:


> Actually I'm planning on joining the mob of hungry people. There's what, like a hundred thousand preppers in the country and like four hundred million unprepared people? Good luck against those odds. Donner Party 2014!


Do you want the shot coming from the front or from behind?


----------



## snowroller (Jan 23, 2014)

Real world knowledge say running is a good self defence. Or just giving the attacker what he or she wants. Avoid seeking confrontation would be no:1.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Space said:


> Actually I'm planning on joining the mob of hungry people. There's what, like a hundred thousand preppers in the country and like four hundred million unprepared people? Good luck against those odds. Donner Party 2014!


We've got a 300 million population. A good part of the population will die in a month from various ways before they ever reach the country and than people out there will be ready for the one's causing trouble, trespassing. I would recommend another course.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Space said:


> Actually I'm planning on joining the mob of hungry people. There's what, like a hundred thousand preppers in the country and like four hundred million unprepared people? Good luck against those odds. Donner Party 2014!


If you are lucky, I will blow your brain clean out of your skull. If you are very unfortunate, you'll be the one to have to gnaw the old flesh off my bones.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

If you ever hear me yell "Fix Bayonets" you better hope your on my side.
And as fuzzee says, by the time the cities are raped and pillaged there most likely won't be any gasoline for them to drive this far. And if they walk it, they will be buzzard bait long before they reach me.
There's lots of Bubbas armed with deer rifles hereabouts.::rambo::


----------



## Space (Mar 14, 2013)

Denton said:


> If you are lucky, I will blow your brain clean out of your skull. If you are very unfortunate, you'll be the one to have to gnaw the old flesh off my bones.


I am prepared to do that.

Fuzzee I was counting Mexico since I understood (for various reasons) for the scenario to be in Texas, in my 400 million number (if you include Canada you're getting closer to five hundred million but I don't count them as a threat since they are generally a peace loving maple syrup loving peoples). And I agree many, no, most will die in the months afterwards. No wait make it 75%. That leaves a hundred million people. Now assuming a perfect scenario in which the military/police/private militias or security people or whatever are not in any way involved in the mob, and they aren't using hardened vehicles and are somehow completely unarmed, is it really possible to stop a force that size? I'm really just curious. The numbers just seem so daunting. Isn't hiding better than confrontation?


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

ekim said:


> Do you want the shot coming from the front or from behind?


I just hope I've got seasoning left for grilling by the time they reach me. How do you like your "Space"? Medium rare or well done?


----------



## specknowsbest (Jan 5, 2014)

Space said:


> I am prepared to do that.
> 
> Fuzzee I was counting Mexico since I understood (for various reasons) for the scenario to be in Texas, in my 400 million number (if you include Canada you're getting closer to five hundred million but I don't count them as a threat since they are generally a peace loving maple syrup loving peoples). And I agree many, no, most will die in the months afterwards. No wait make it 75%. That leaves a hundred million people. Now assuming a perfect scenario in which the military/police/private militias or security people or whatever are not in any way involved in the mob, and they aren't using hardened vehicles and are somehow completely unarmed, is it really possible to stop a force that size? I'm really just curious. The numbers just seem so daunting. Isn't hiding better than confrontation?


To be honest, it's not difficult to immobilize an armored vehicle when you're talking about the typical military HMMWVs or MRAPs, which you'd most likely see. The glass is rated only to take three hits of 7.62x39mm in a centralized area before losing its strength and caving. A well placed 7.62x54r FMJ will rip right through the glass and whoever is inside, then there's nifty things like IEDs, which most people will eventually figure out how to make, AP rounds (which some of us might or might not invest in). Tracked vehicles are even easier (in my opinion) to immobilize, since they'll be going nowhere if the treads are blown off the vehicle.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Fuzzee said:


> I just hope I've got seasoning left for grilling by the time they reach me. How do you like your "Space"? Medium rare or well done?
> 
> View attachment 4136


I don't want any space. It just doesn't sound very filling. 
It'll just go into the hole, with whatever else attempts to attack the family.


----------



## Space (Mar 14, 2013)

I just think the idea of one or two or twenty people against a group of thousands of, essentially refugees, being effective is just a romantic notion. It's easy to picture shooting a leather clad, Mad Max villain-esque raider. But the reality of the situation is that in a disaster many of the people fleeing a disaster are going to be women and children. So, assuming for arguments sake that there is no force sufficient to overthrow your defenses, when is it ok to shoot an eleven year old child? If I'm reading this right and you are all advocating for violent only means of defense, well I'm not sure that's the kind of world I'd want to survive in.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

It is never a good idea to "give them what they want" because at some point you are going to run out of it. A hungry enemy is easier to defeat when you are not. 

They won't get close enough to ask me for anything unless they are strong enough to holler real loud. I will likely ignore them until I hear screaming coming from some looter pinned to the ground with a good old fashioned rake or man-hold trap. That should tell the others that it might be too "expensive" to shop here.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Space said:


> Actually I'm planning on joining the mob of hungry people. There's what, like a hundred thousand preppers in the country and like four hundred million unprepared people? Good luck against those odds. Donner Party 2014!


Are you the fat guy from the preppers show?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Space said:


> I am prepared to do that.
> 
> Fuzzee I was counting Mexico since I understood (for various reasons) for the scenario to be in Texas, in my 400 million number (if you include Canada you're getting closer to five hundred million but I don't count them as a threat since they are generally a peace loving maple syrup loving peoples). And I agree many, no, most will die in the months afterwards. No wait make it 75%. That leaves a hundred million people. Now assuming a perfect scenario in which the military/police/private militias or security people or whatever are not in any way involved in the mob, and they aren't using hardened vehicles and are somehow completely unarmed, is it really possible to stop a force that size? I'm really just curious. The numbers just seem so daunting. Isn't hiding better than confrontation?


It really isn't imaginable that a number that size will aggress against us. It isn't imaginable that many self-centered people working together, nor is it imaginable that they will go far before turning against each other. As you mention, they will begin eating each other if nothing else is available. Roaming groups of manageable size for those who are prepared is more imaginable, to me. Sure, they'll leave no stone unturned while looking for those to rape, murder, pillage and burn, so to speak, but I wouldn't expect the stones to be all that easy to turn over.


----------



## specknowsbest (Jan 5, 2014)

Space said:


> I just think the idea of one or two or twenty people against a group of thousands of, essentially refugees, being effective is just a romantic notion. It's easy to picture shooting a leather clad, Mad Max villain-esque raider. But the reality of the situation is that in a disaster many of the people fleeing a disaster are going to be women and children. So, assuming for arguments sake that there is no force sufficient to overthrow your defenses, when is it ok to shoot an eleven year old child? If I'm reading this right and you are all advocating for violent only means of defense, well I'm not sure that's the kind of world I'd want to survive in.


That's the thing, when surviving, all notions of humanity are out the window. Your priority should be the survival and welfare of your family. If that 11 year old child is attempting to steal from me, then I don't see a child, I see an active threat to the safety and security of my family. What happens if that 11 year old kid runs back to some 21 year old adults sporting firearms and tells them where he found some food? My world is my family, and I will survive in them by ensuring that they survive by any means necessary. I advocate the use of "non-violent" defenses, such as barbed wire, thorned ivy, fences, dogs, etc. But, as I previously stated, if the mob comes to mooch or steal, I will be as violent as I can manage, and I can be extremely violent when the need arises, just ask the few idiots who have ever tested their limits with me or who attempted to enter my property illegally (there's a couple "Police Officers" in San Marcos who should have a story for you about a 21 year old man threatening to cave their skulls in if they continued to refuse to leave his house in which they entered illegally without probable cause or a warrant). Remember, if SHTF it's not your normal scenario anymore, it's outright survival, especially if it's a long term SHTF. Does this mean I won't lend a helping hand to somebody? Not necessarily, but I will be extremely cautious, and the first hint of deception or threat I pick up on will be replied with semi-automatic gunfire.

Also, history has proven time and time again that small numbers can conquer the larger force, especially if that force is nothing more than an untrained mass of hungry, starving, sleep deprived, dehydrated people clawing over the corpses of other human beings. Territory and defenses play a huge part in it. If I'm holed up in our property, there are several fields of fire I can switch to in a matter of seconds, but only a couple avenues of approach for any intruder(s), regardless of the size of their mob.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Space said:


> I am prepared to do that.
> 
> Fuzzee I was counting Mexico since I understood (for various reasons) for the scenario to be in Texas, in my 400 million number (if you include Canada you're getting closer to five hundred million but I don't count them as a threat since they are generally a peace loving maple syrup loving peoples). And I agree many, no, most will die in the months afterwards. No wait make it 75%. That leaves a hundred million people. Now assuming a perfect scenario in which the military/police/private militias or security people or whatever are not in any way involved in the mob, and they aren't using hardened vehicles and are somehow completely unarmed, is it really possible to stop a force that size? I'm really just curious. The numbers just seem so daunting. Isn't hiding better than confrontation?


That number if it's even close to that, that come to anyone's countryside are going to be spread out across the US, and when it hits, towns will be forced, not simply choose to, will be forced to defend and protect their area's with force or die themselves. There simply is not enough food to feed the population when things go down and people will have to die. I don't put much stock into Mexico coming here in large numbers. The people in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and lower California are restrained now from stopping people crossing the border. When things go down and their not, those Mexicans are going to find armed teams putting bullets in them. Not talking, not holding them to ship off later. Cutting them down to get the message across that should have been delivered long ago. "You're not welcome."

America will most definitely be a killing zone when the system crumbles.

.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Denton said:


> I don't want any space. It just doesn't sound very filling.
> It'll just go into the hole, with whatever else attempts to attack the family.


Oh I don't know. I'm real good on a grill. Your mouth will be watering. I think you'll change your mind. :mrgreen:

.


----------



## Space (Mar 14, 2013)

I don't have anything else to add to this discussion, other than to say I certainly hope no disaster ever strikes because I fear for the innocent refugee seeking aid and shelter and finding nothing but aggression.


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Once many years ago when I was young and fighting for this country I was of the mind set "kill them all and let god sort it out " cause I was going to survive at all costs. As Denton said the older I get the more I feel for others. My way of thinking has changed but if it came down to me and mine I can revert back in an instant.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Space said:


> I don't have anything else to add to this discussion, other than to say I certainly hope no disaster ever strikes because I fear for the innocent refugee seeking aid and shelter and finding nothing but aggression.


Yes, I hope nothing ever happens, too. Still, I would suggest everyone prepare. Everyone. Have your lamp oil. Don't be caught without it, as we all know we need it.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Space said:


> I don't have anything else to add to this discussion, other than to say I certainly hope no disaster ever strikes because I fear for the innocent refugee seeking aid and shelter and finding nothing but aggression.


When you have just enough for your family the "innocent refugee" is neither "innocent" nor a "refugee". They are looters, thieves, and murderers as they will kill to get what they need because they didn't prepare.

When the shepherd dies the sheep are culled by the wolves. There aren't enough "watchdogs" to protect and feed them so we will stay clear until the wolves are starving.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Space said:


> I don't have anything else to add to this discussion, other than to say I certainly hope no disaster ever strikes because I fear for the innocent refugee seeking aid and shelter and finding nothing but aggression.


The only innocents are the youngest children. Everyone else has done their share in greed and self absorption feeding on and feeding into the consumer based, spoiled life that has been created. They had time and means to not be in such a state but they chose to do what they did. And than it makes it ok to come and take from others? No, sorry. It does not.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

There are two lines that I remember;

1. Pay attention - or pay the consequences.

2. Every decision has a consequence - so choose your consequence.


----------



## wesley762 (Oct 23, 2012)

Buy a Island and move there. that will solve about 98% of the issues.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Kids scare me the worst. Read "Lord of the Flys". Children left to their own or told to fight (like the rebels in South Africa, I think) are brutal and merciless.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

paraquack said:


> Kids scare me the worst. Read "Lord of the Flys". Children left to their own or told to fight (like the rebels in South Africa, I think) are brutal and merciless.


Anything that can hide inside a TV shipping box is something that should scare the normal and rational human.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

ekim said:


> Where can I get a couple of those signs, but for KY?


Here ya go.
View attachment 4138


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Fuzzee said:


> I just hope I've got seasoning left for grilling by the time they reach me. How do you like your "Space"? Medium rare or well done?


Space sounds as smart as the ass on Doomday Prepper's that was arrested for have a firearm even though he is a felon.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Space said:


> I just think the idea of one or two or twenty people against a group of thousands of, essentially refugees, being effective is just a romantic notion. It's easy to picture shooting a leather clad, Mad Max villain-esque raider. But the reality of the situation is that in a disaster *many of the people fleeing a disaster are going to be women and children.* So, assuming for arguments sake that there is no force sufficient to overthrow your defenses, *when is it ok to shoot an eleven year old child*? If I'm reading this right and you are all advocating for violent only means of defense, well I'm not sure that's the kind of world I'd want to survive in.


When that women or child is willing/able to kill me or mine for what they want, I am then ready to do the same. American soldiers learned the hard way when they tried to fight with their hearts instead of their brain in Viet Nam and now in the middle east. It will be no different on American soil.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Space said:


> I don't have anything else to add to this discussion, other than to say I certainly hope no disaster ever strikes because I fear for the innocent refugee seeking aid and shelter and finding nothing but aggression.


Pure and utter BS, you got your butt handed to you and are looking for an easy way out, IMO.


----------



## Silverback (Jan 20, 2014)

ekim said:


> Pure and utter BS, you got your butt handed to you and are looking for an easy way out, IMO.


Romantics do not understand the mindset you have ekim, it's the mindset of true survival and honestly one I would want covering me. There rarely is a rose that does not get pulled in war, because as we know, every rose has its thorn.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Ill just give the poor less fortunate half of everything I have. I mean, really, my kids and I dont REALLY need all the stuff I have accumulated. 
Sorry, while I was eating homecooked food and renting a dvd for entertainment, that "poor starving innocent victem" was at the mall, had a 30 dollar dinner, then went to the movies for another 30 dollars spent. 
Watch the childrens fable the ant and the grasshopper, write me 500 word essay on why the grasshopper feels that "the world owes me a living", and then we can talk seriously.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Silverback said:


> Romantics do not understand the mindset you have ekim, it's the mindset of true survival and honestly one I would want covering me. There rarely is a rose that does not get pulled in war, because as we know, every rose has its thorn.


This is the internet, but if any one can take anything to heart it is this, I will stand by any American standing up for their God given rights and I will be in front of all if that's what it takes, but I will shoot first if it comes to that.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Ekim, some people on here just make noise, stir shit, and watch to see the results. 
You, ARE NOT one of those people, and I would bet my last can of beans on that.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Deebo said:


> Ekim, some people on here just make noise, stir shit, and watch to see the results.
> You, ARE NOT one of those people, and I would bet my last can of beans on that.


Careful, don't let a certain member here know you have a can of beans.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Deebo said:


> Ekim, some people on here just make noise, stir shit, and watch to see the results.
> You, ARE NOT one of those people, and I would bet my last can of beans on that.


True I make some noise and I have stirred some shit, but I don't think you would loose that can of beans on my account. All can believe what they want and say what ever they want. Unfortunately none of us will know til the time comes, I've been very close once but I let him walk and he was smart and walked. He did have a round ring in the skin on his forehead though as he went. He got the message.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

The level of aggression in defense is directly proportional to the level of aggression in the offense. The stronger you are in trying to take what is mine, the stronger my retaliation will be. The violence that I am capable of when defending the survival of my family some would consider, shocking.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I'm still wandering, what does it mean to grab your protection and head for the high ground. What does this mean, precisely.


----------



## XMTG (Jan 28, 2014)

In the situation you described violence is the only option. Overwhelming violence.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

XMTG said:


> In the situation you described violence is the only option. Overwhelming violence.


The sole purpose of 20/30 round magazines, stop the threat and the violence.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

I feel that if violence has to be dealt, shock and awe.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

I guess i missed something, what is the reference to non violent defense?


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

Wonder how the opinions expressed here would change if or when one of our carefully executed preparations runs out before we planned or things settled down?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> Wonder how the opinions expressed here would change if or when one of our carefully executed preparations runs out before we planned or things settled down?


What are you saying? Spit it out! ::rambo::


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

I did, but it was in another post...lol


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> Wonder how the opinions expressed here would change if or when one of our carefully executed preparations runs out before we planned or things settled down?


Like hillary bitch clinton said, "What difference would it make"! If your preps run out, so has your time I would guess, time to die. But at least I would have given all I had. What's the alternative, just give up.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

ekim said:


> Like hillary bitch clinton said, "What difference would it make"! If your preps run out, so has your time I would guess, time to die. But at least I would have given all I had. What's the alternative, just give up.


So if my preps run out, I should just give up and die? Or should I use my tools and military knowledge to try and take yours? What if the roles are reversed?


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> So if my preps run out, I should just give up and die? Or should I use my tools and military knowledge to try and take yours? What if the roles are reversed?


Like Denton said, what are you trying to say, do you know, or is this a never end riddle. Enjoy your game.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Reporter to grizzled combat vet: "But, but, how can you shoot women and children?"
Vet: "Easy. You just don't lead them as much."


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

non violent defence, that's a better oxymoron than army intelligence or Microsoft works... good one op


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Space said:


> when is it ok to shoot an eleven year old child?


When he /she is moving in me and my family's direction with weapon in hand.


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Just Sayin' said:


> So if my preps run out, I should just give up and die? Or should I use my tools and military knowledge to try and take yours? What if the roles are reversed?


This the main reason I would not belong to a militia or prepper group, supply's start to run out the have nots will turn on the ones who have. 
No, you don't give up and die, during this type of situation there are no rules you hold out to your last breath or bullet, which ever comes first.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

No such thing as non violent defense that YOU WILL SURVIVE


----------



## MI.oldguy (Apr 18, 2013)

I would not be able to be non violent in Our defense.I would get down and dirty as I would have to to defend my wife,dog,kids,(grown up now)and home.as I have been growing older and seeing whats happening in this country and the rest of the world these days,I am growing more intolerent to the government,drug dealers,and the sick,cruel society members that we posess as so called citizenry.so,in essence,if you wanna screw(f-word delete) with me you are gonna get what you deserve and you will lose unless/until someone gets lucky and gets me first and,thats going to be a hard deal to do with what I have been taught and what I have learned over these many years dealing with some of the scum of the world we all have to share here. sorry for the rant but,thats how its gonna have to go down when I roll.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> So if my preps run out, I should just give up and die? Or should I use my tools and military knowledge to try and take yours? What if the roles are reversed?


Brother, I hope you are using this time of relative security to be making connections and networking. You have skills, knowledge and abilities that make you an asset to others. You won't make it by yourself, and others won't, either.

Besides, I do not think we will ever see a situation without some sort of end of one sort or another.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

I do have a networked group and reasonable preparations if things get bad, but I also know from past experience that the most thought out plans usually are trashed at the moment contact is made. 

Ekim, I guess my questions were more rhetorical in nature. All of us already knew our own answer to them. 

I was just trying to get folks to thinking about that side of prepping. Because, believe me, if it lasts very long at all, some of the folks coming after you are not going to be the "fat stupid shits" from the show. They're gonna be some very well educated, experienced warfighters who will be able to take out most static defenses. Me and some of my friends might just be among them. I don't want to do it, but if it means survival of my family, then I guess it must be acceptable. No need for me or others to debate the philosophical advantages of joining forces with someone who starts the debate with bullets, right?


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

specknowsbest said:


> To be honest, it's not difficult to immobilize an armored vehicle when you're talking about the typical military HMMWVs or MRAPs, which you'd most likely see. The glass is rated only to take three hits of 7.62x39mm in a centralized area before losing its strength and caving. A well placed 7.62x54r FMJ will rip right through the glass and whoever is inside, then there's nifty things like IEDs, which most people will eventually figure out how to make, AP rounds (which some of us might or might not invest in). Tracked vehicles are even easier (in my opinion) to immobilize, since they'll be going nowhere if the treads are blown off the vehicle.


Not to disagree...but most MRAPs stop .50 cals and then some (RPG's, EFP's, etc.). Taliban and AQI have heavy weapons and a vehicle that couldn't stop a general issue assault rifle wouldn't do much good on the modern battlefield. If your experience is different, okay...but all the MRAPs I've been in have been able to stop 7.62 without breaking a sweat. The MRAP was specifically designed to resist IED attack. The Frag-6 upgraded ones reduced EFP fatalitles by 70%. I believe the goal from congress was to have all in theater MRAP's Frag-6 upgraded by FY 11. Also, there hasn't been a single report of an IED fatality from MRAP equipped movements since 2008. And that was a 600 lb ANFO IED that detonated near an exposed turret gunner. All personnel inside had minor injuries.



sparkyprep said:


> The level of aggression in defense is directly proportional to the level of aggression in the offense. The stronger you are in trying to take what is mine, the stronger my retaliation will be. The violence that I am capable of when defending the survival of my family some would consider, shocking.


I agree with this. Similar to modern law enforcement use of force protocols. The more force escalated by the opponent, the more you must escalate to ensure your survival. This unfortunately is the way of the world.

But to answer the original question:
There are several ways to inflict damage without causing death. For instance, there are audio devices that emit strong audio signals (around 200 db) that will stop invaders in their tracks. You could use a focal microwave emitter...it's used to break up riots with non-lethal means. On a personal level, use rock salt 12 gauge rounds, or non-lethal bean bag, or pepper ball rounds. It will incapacitate would be assailants with non-lethal damage. You could make your own tear gas and rig it to trip wire around your property...just make sure you place it in such a place as so the wind wont blow it to you...called a plume. Some well place concertina wire goes a LOOONNNNGGGG way in deterring anyone from attempting to cross it.

I used to have to set up C-wire in Iraq and Saudi...that shit sucks. I would not want to have to go through that crap to get to my target. Rig that with trip flares so anyone attempting to breach gives away their position. The shoot tear gas at them or hit them with bean bags or the audio device. Just some ideas.


----------



## preppersintent (Jan 26, 2014)

I read a great statement here, Ill quote it like this "people are fearless when starving and thirsty"...so in the end this makes the ones in your group suspect..no?...the ones U allow into Your home while asleep??...this is why im a lone wolf as they say,(with dogs) Ive seen how fast friends can turn, how will this play out when they are thirst-mad or starving??


----------



## Silverback (Jan 20, 2014)

Denton said:


> Brother, I hope you are using this time of relative security to be making connections and networking. You have skills, knowledge and abilities that make you an asset to others. You won't make it by yourself, and others won't, either.
> 
> Besides, I do not think we will ever see a situation without some sort of end of one sort or another.


What he said


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Smokin04 said:


> Some well place concertina wire goes a LOOONNNNGGGG way in deterring anyone from attempting to cross it.
> 
> I used to have to set up C-wire in Iraq and Saudi...that shit sucks. I would not want to have to go through that crap to get to my target. Rig that with trip flares so anyone attempting to breach gives away their position. The shoot tear gas at them or hit them with bean bags or the audio device. Just some ideas.


We used razor concertina wire in a triple apron arrangement around our base camp, the NVA used to go UNDER it. We hung c ration cans with pebbles in them on the strands to hopefully make noise. 
Those vehicles you described sound pretty cool. Sure beats a layer of sandbags on the cab floor of a deuce-and-a-half.

Welcome home, my friend.


----------



## longrider (Mar 25, 2013)

I'm counting on having stores for all of my group. We stand together, as it's mostly family. Hoping to have garden, livestock so we don't starve. I've got enough for our group for a little over 2 months, right now. My friend has enough beef to last us until 2030. If we can keep others away.

Oh, and guys? The name is "Longrider" *not* long rat.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

I can only hope that everyone procures a short wave or CB radio. This will be the only form of long distance communication post SHTF.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

It means: Take the wife to the top of the hill so you can watch as they take what you have and burn your home to the ground.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

You have to decide who is more important, them or your family.

For me it would depend on the situation. One thing I liked about Rawles books was the way they handled outsiders. They would disarm, separate and search them. All the while letting them know you had them covered. The people who were not thugs would be offered food to travel with and be sent on their way. 

I am a firm believer in charity but in the same respect, you don't offer peaceful resistance to thugs. They will sense your fear and feed on it. If you think they will just take what they want and leave, well that part is true. You may not like what they want. You, your spouse, your children and maybe your life. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, go roam the inner city streets of Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc. You will learn quickly, I guarantee it. That is, if you survive.


----------



## oldmurph58 (Feb 8, 2014)

snowroller said:


> Real world knowledge say running is a good self defence. Or just giving the attacker what he or she wants. Avoid seeking confrontation would be no:1.


 im too old to out run a bullet and if i give up my stuff they might just kill me anyway


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I agree Murph. I think the best way to avoid a violent conflict is to deal with them at 300 yards.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

In the real world there is no Non violent defense of anything. Even Gandhi Knew that. Most so call non violent people depend on the violent action of others to defend them and their ideas .


----------



## oldmurph58 (Feb 8, 2014)

Space said:


> I just think the idea of one or two or twenty people against a group of thousands of, essentially refugees, being effective is just a romantic notion. It's easy to picture shooting a leather clad, Mad Max villain-esque raider. But the reality of the situation is that in a disaster many of the people fleeing a disaster are going to be women and children. So, assuming for arguments sake that there is no force sufficient to overthrow your defenses, when is it ok to shoot an eleven year old child? If I'm reading this right and you are all advocating for violent only means of defense, well I'm not sure that's the kind of world I'd want to survive in.


 i think generaly if you drop a couple the rest are gonna go somewhere else


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Take out the one giving orders first! then take out the next to give an order. Repeat as required.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

oldmurph58 said:


> i think generaly if you drop a couple the rest are gonna go somewhere else


 One of the scariest things is to have someone drop and have no idea where the shot came from


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

You always run the risk of killing someone using non lethal force.

Generally non lethal intervention would be to temporarily imobilize the threat through for instance an net. There are risks with most other methods - concusive force, tranquilizers, irritants, --- permanent damage can be caused by painful noise levels, microwave energy. Accidents can happen with foamers, paint guns, electrical discharges. Meanwhile while knives and guns can be nonlethal bleeding an maiming are a potential. even rounds rubber bullets etc.. can hit an eye or temple and cause more damage than intended, beanbag shotguns will still cause tissue damage and could if striking a skull cause lethal concusive force.

Hard objects such as staves can break bones.. even kicks can punches can be lethal.

The only real non lethal intervention method is netting or evasion. There are netguns. Injury risk is signifigantly lower when using nets however hard contact with the ground can still occur.

Net Gun | eBay

Take a look at SOF for ideas of non lethal intervention.. particularly abuduction skills.. the idea is to take down the target and cuff them up like police or the like.. russian system-a uses a lot of holds.. you get that with things like jujitsu also I beleive.. it is all about holds and locks. maybe also akido, and others I think judo is more so throws. None the less the idea is to take out joints particularly the knee, elbow and shoulder. That is why in krav maga and knife fighting methods the knee is a prime target.. if you take out the knee you take out a large range of mobility. if you take out the shoulder and elbow ranged weapon use is mostly removed. it won't kill them but it could ruin their life.

It is easier with two people think bowser.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I believe there are some good suggestions of how to do non violent deterrence in this thread. 

I suspect at the the end of those attempts you will still have that one person or persons who for what ever reasons, are not going to take the (Concertina wire, teargas etc.) hint. Now what? When the barbarians are at the door and your backs against the wall is a heck of a time to have an epiphany.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Non-violent defense=cleaning up the gene pool.

During Katrina the rule of law went right out the window. Many were killing others just because they could. 

If you're willing to bet your life and lives of your family on the good will of bad guys, go for it. Me, not so much.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet (Mar 3, 2013)

Deterrents I understand and that's as close to non violent defense as it gets. When it's time to defend it's because you are about to be the receipient of an attack.


----------



## Go2ndAmend (Apr 5, 2013)

Oxymoron. (On second though, maybe just a moron.)


----------



## specknowsbest (Jan 5, 2014)

oldmurph58 said:


> i think generaly if you drop a couple the rest are gonna go somewhere else


I'd personally rather just shoot as many as I can from 500+yds away with the Mosin and advance with the AK as needed. Sure, I spend more ammo killing them, but if they were dumb enough to attack then they had a reason to be cocky, like weapons of their own, which could mean more ammunition and supplies to resupply myself with.


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

I believe a solid defense mechanism would be reinforcing your current location. Deterrents would probably work as well... Use the environment to your advantage, but I guess that would vary depending on what environment you would currently be in during the scenario. Honestly, I haven't really thought of too many non-violent defense mechanisms. I probably should.


----------



## kevin108 (Jan 16, 2014)

The best non-violent defense I can think of is to hide behind someone prepared to perform violent acts so you don't have to.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

There is nothing violent about carefully squeezing a trigger. The person on the other end catching the bullet is doing all the violent things.


----------



## Reptilicus (Jan 4, 2014)

Best defense is an overwhelming OFFENSE! By the way what exactly is a non violent defence? Is it like being in a fair fight? If so, your strategy sucks!


----------



## specknowsbest (Jan 5, 2014)

Reptilicus said:


> Best defense is an overwhelming OFFENSE! By the way what exactly is a non violent defence? Is it like being in a fair fight? If so, your strategy sucks!


Examples of a non-violent defense would be forms of barriers that make it so difficult to advance that the potential intruders/looters would be more inclined to just leave, so things like barbed wire, thorned bushes, dense brush, walls, net traps, etc. That said, non-violent defenses are only good for stopping the less than motivated looters and for supplementing your defense to make it easier for you to take lethal action. I'm with you, the best defense is an overwhelming offense, but at the same time I'd prefer to be as low-key as possible, keeping as small of a foot print as I can so that the masses are most likely to just walk right by, as it saves me ammunition. If all else fails though, and the looters/raiders come onto my property, they'll be met with an overwhelming amount of violence.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

kevin108 said:


> The best non-violent defense I can think of is to hide behind someone prepared to perform violent acts so you don't have to.
> 
> "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
> -- George Orwell


 Amazing how often that seems to be how it works.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

kevin108 said:


> The best non-violent defense I can think of is to hide behind someone prepared to perform violent acts so you don't have to.


Pretty soon these people will get wise to the fact that you are hiding behind them and the next time they are attacked they will probably make it a point to throw you in first as a distraction.


----------



## younggunner (Feb 11, 2014)

I think that a good way to help deter as many threats as possible is A: by hiding as well as you can and having really good opsec. B: create a strong perimeter with a lot of deterrents. Some that come to mind would be large thick thorny plants on the perimeter as well as some ditches dug so that vehicles wont be able to cross them. C: Hide yourself really well I repeated that point because it is the best way to non-violently protect yourself depending on your definition of non-violent. I think that if you had a lot of trees between you and the road especially thick thorny trees like pines and a lot of thick scrubby undergrowth as well. You could also consider painting your house to look like the landscape behind it thus rendering it relatively invisible I got that idea from an artist who paints people to look like what they are standing in front of thus rendering them nearly invisible. It is really cool I think the same concept could work on a building as well especially if you know someone who really likes painting.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> Amazing how often that seems to be how it works.


Hiding only works so long and pretty soon there is no one to hide behind. Kind of like hiding behind the government for all your needs and then the government runs out of other people wants and needs, then what? Not my idea of a good plan.


----------



## oldmurph58 (Feb 8, 2014)

Denton said:


> I don't want to ever hurt anyone, again. The older I get, the more I feel for others. Even those people I detest have vulnerabilities, fears and concerns. Somewhere, someone loves them.
> That being said, once someone finds you and realizes you have what they need or want, you and your family is in danger. It's just a matter of time until they come creeping back in the early hours.


 maybe you could rig some kind of electric fence like they use for horse corrals, around your house, paintball guns with pepper rounds ,super soakers with ammonia instead of water cs grenades or home made smoke pots with a ton of cyanne pepper used all together they might deter most wandering mobs maybe bean bag rounds for your 12 ga. birdshot? and foghorns like for a ship


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The premise is "non-violent" defense. Using that restriction it seems obvious to me that you only have 2 choices, run or hide. Either you keep running every time you see signs of other people, or you hide yourself where no one can find you. Maybe a well camouflaged bunker that no one knows is there and can't find the entrance to, or a location so remote that no one else will ever go there. Good luck with both of them. 

Personally the only step towards "non-violence" that I MIGHT take is to put a sign up on approaching my home that says "Come any closer and you will die. NO EXCEPTIONS!". Do I want to shoot anyone? No. Would I feel "bad" about it later? Possibly or even Probably. Would I be willing to risk the lives of my family or myself because I might feel badly about shooting someone determined to approach my home despite warnings? NO. IMO most of the people that you will encounter will be those who have never seriously considered having more food on hand then would last them until their next regular grocery shopping day, don't believe that you would or even have the right to deny them trying get food from you, and do not believe that you would actually shoot them even if you warn them away. I will not feel guilty for peoples stupid choices. I might feel sorry for them later, but I will NOT feel guilty about it.


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

*My Golden Rule:* Do whatever you have to in order to live and protect those you love.


----------



## Scotty12 (Jan 5, 2013)

Fear is an issue. I live alone. Between my beagle and I I will know f someone is on my property with ill intent. I'd be afraid not to use a firearm that I had. Defend yourself with malice.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Non-violent defense vs violent
Kiev, Ukraine Protests - Raw Footage (WARNING Graphic Content) - YouTube


----------

