# Dealing with other survivors.



## Vulture (Apr 1, 2015)

One of the most obvious things I have noticed on "doomsday preppers" (other than people putting earthquake food supplies in glass jars on high shelves with no doors) is that people aren't aggressive enough in their "tests". When it comes to the crunch, most people are afraid or at least reluctant to pull the trigger. 

Obviously, most of us don't WANT to go around killing people, and your reaction to meeting other survivors will depend on the situation. We have a few all purpose rules - nobody will be allowed to endanger the security of our people or our home. Nobody who discovers our home base will be allowed to tell others. In any total anarchy situation, lone males or all-male groups will be considered a danger. Mixed gender groups will depend - if women and children are terrified of other members of the group, that would obviously raise concerns. Families with children will most likely be taken in as long as they are willing to contribute, as we believe most fathers would recognize the importance of safety in numbers and work for the good of the community for the good of his family, whereas lone males or all male groups are more likely to be aggressive. It seems my family are in the minority among preppers however, in that we don't plan solely for any one situation (of course I could be wrong here, as I have little experience with other preppers). We believe shit is due to hit the fan, but we don't know exactly how it will happen, so our plans for each situation differ slightly, and dealing with other people varies more than most parts of the plan - a dangerous disease or infection will obviously mean different treatment of fellow survivors to a war with foreign invaders, a simple technological meltdown or anything that causes total anarchy. Each should be treated differently.

So my point is, what are you prepping for and how would you treat other survivors based on how that would affect the world? Who would you kill? Are you willing to kill? Who, if anyone, would you take in? Who would you ignore? How would you treat a family looking for shelter or supplies? How would you treat a group of young men looking for shelter or supplies? Etc.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

I would prefer to feint epidemic and keep drifters away period. Gender or age doesn't automatically confer trustworthiness.


----------



## Big Country1 (Feb 10, 2014)

I view prepping as a responsibility. I have a responsibility too my wife, and son to keep them safe at all cost. If you don't see keeping your family safe your responsibility, we'll that's not my fault. I'm not going to take a chance on someone deciding they want to get rid of us for what we have. If it's a serious all out SHTF event, all trespassers are considered hostile.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

While I am prepared to do what must be done, I too would prefer to hide or 
scare the crap out of a looter enough to make them go next door.
View attachment 10539
View attachment 10540


in addition I would post signs like this on main through ways to keep people out of my neighborhood.
View attachment 10541


----------



## Vulture (Apr 1, 2015)

I understand that age or gender doesnt = trustworthiness, of course. 

To clarify my personal plans, first let me point out that my family will be on an isolated farm, deep in the aussie bush and invisible from the road. The approaching curves around, with lookout points/ sniper nests on hills covering both entries to the road. Cars are unlikely to come down this road, so most encounters we would have are most likely going to be outside, when we are scavenging (if that is necessary). 

If it is a contagious disease, anyone and everyone will be shot on sight.

In the case of a hostile invasion, religious war etc, enemy forces will be shot on sight and friendly forces will be allowed to pass but we will most likely not reveal ourselves. 

In the case of a collapse of civilization/anarchy, that's when lone men or groups of men will be shot on sight. Families with parents as the only adults and no teenagers will be CONSIDERED. Essentially, the weak will be CONSIDERED as workers, and if someone decides they want our help they won't be leaving. 

If society collapses but doesn't reach a state of anarchy (not like there is a lot keeping everything in order out there anyway, but we don't go shooting each other very often as it is), we will be far more lenient.

There are 7 in my family, plus another 2 family friends who can be trusted and live a convenient distance from the farm, and my partner and her family, who aren't preppers but are all trained medical staff. But with the chickens, horses, hundreds of wild kangaroos and goats, greenhouses and gardens, as well as stockpiled food and water from the well, there is space and resources for us to take in a few more, as more workers means more of us can assist on scavenging runs, and we can make sure there's always somebody in each lookout. We have several other friends we would consider letting in if anything happened, but they don't know of our plans and if they don't just happen to be with us at the time then too bad for them.

It comes down to how the world goes to shit, and how badly.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Here's how we'll deal with "survivors" at Slippy Lodge...

View attachment 10542


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

I'll tell you one for sure .... our experiences dealing with the sheeple refugees, here in the US, will be a close 180 degrees compared to yours in Ozland ... we are going to have some of the most shocked and desperate sections of the populous you'll ever want to see - and they have an entire heritage of violence to go with it .... if you get any reports out of the US you'll hear of the outrageous violence, cruelty and mayhem .... it'll be one for the world's history books ....


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

I think your rules are generally sound. There's definitely strength in numbers, but, my clan won't be taking in lone wolves or all male groups post SHTF (we will actively avoid all male groups). We would consider taking in family groups with women and children, and we may make exceptions for couples or lone females, too. 

Statistically speaking, males are several times more likely to commit violent crime/homicide than females are (young males are more violent than middle aged males). Single men are more likely to commit violent crime/homicide than married men are. Married men with children are the least likely of all males to commit violent crime/homicide. 

It only makes sense to discriminate based on probability. A group comprised of married men, their wives/partners, and their children is likely to remain peaceful and productive.


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

Tough call - too may variables as far as I'm concerned. I'm not very trusting as it is, so after an event I reckon I'd become hyper suspicious. Regarding events, I disagree and think most people prep in such a way that allows for upping their odds of survival in a myriad situations.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

I'll tell you one for sure .... our experiences dealing with the sheeple refugees, here in the US, will be a close 180 degrees compared to yours in Ozland ... we are going to have some of the most shocked and desperate sections of the populous you'll ever want to see - and they have an entire heritage of violence to go with it .... if you get any reports out of the US you'll hear of the outrageous violence, cruelty and mayhem .... it'll be one for the world's history books ....


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Vulture said:


> most of us don't WANT to go around killing people,


Speak for yourself... I have a LIST


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Let us not make up imaginary worlds in our head and then take up residence. We seem to have enough troubles for today. 
Matthew 6:34
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


----------



## tekniq (Apr 1, 2015)

I live in Suburbia. How I handle people will depend on which stage of SHTF we're in. 

During a really violent, anarchy period I would kill anyone trying to force their way into my house or making themselves a threat. 

If there was some semblance of community and law of community, I would warn once and shoot next. Any clandestine attacks would be met with extreme force.

During a post-collapse but stable period I would work with my community and determine where to go from there. There are some instances where I would distance myself and remain vaguely hostile, there are other instances where I would volunteer my preps to help out. 

The key for me is adaptability. I know people have different levels and abilities of reading people and understanding them but I'm pretty good at reading people at face evaluation and pretty good at "getting along" (something my introverted, quiet, people-averse husband loves, ha!) and the truth is we don't have a singular protocol. It will depend on the situation and the people approaching. 

My biggest struggle is reconciling my desire to be ruthless in times of great struggle, with my desire to follow God's law even during bad times. I know I am Biblically allowed to defend mine and my own from ruthless attack but from the suck of the needy but stupid, I am a bit fluxxomed on the moral thing to do when it comes to cutting them off or not come in the first place. I WANT to help my neighbors but I cannot help them if I am dead. With that in mind, I think our ultimate plan is to fly low, destroy threats, and promise and make good (if we survive) to help the community when things stabilize and people are no longer desperate and looting.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Maine-Marine said:


> Speak for yourself... I have a LIST


So, I'm not the only twisted SOB? :violent:


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

No list here...but that was highly funny..witty etc. We'uns are prepared to share till it runs out. It only seems Christian or something. Now kindly dont present any hypothetical scenarios. Thanks.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

If it's me, my family or them and they are a threat, I wouldnt hesitate to pull the trigger. Like others in this group, it wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Well dont think any of us would retreat in face of danger to our families. Or hope not anyway. Stranger things have happened in history no doubt. Condolences on the aforesaid previous hammer down on a human event. Very bad old deals for all concerned?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

bigwheel said:


> No list here...but that was highly funny..witty etc. We'uns are prepared to share till it runs out. It only seems Christian or something. Now kindly dont present any hypothetical scenarios. Thanks.


We will share also.. however we are not going to be giving folks EVERYTHING... And I am betting some folks that visit might get sick of peanut butter sandwiches

We will not let people go hungry but we are not going to be providing 4 course meals


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Thats why I have to hide the baloney and ice cream when the little skillet lickers come for a visit. lol


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

bigwheel said:


> Well dont think any of us would retreat in face of danger to our families. Or hope not anyway. Stranger things have happened in history no doubt...


Have you noticed Obama's treatment of the bad guys out there compared to how he's treating the US. 
Oh Yah, that's right. just more proof he's not family or countryman.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Charles Martel said:


> I think your rules are generally sound. There's definitely strength in numbers, but, my clan won't be taking in lone wolves or all male groups post SHTF (we will actively avoid all male groups). We would consider taking in family groups with women and children, and we may make exceptions for couples or lone females, too.
> 
> Statistically speaking, males are several times more likely to commit violent crime/homicide than females are (young males are more violent than middle aged males). Single men are more likely to commit violent crime/homicide than married men are. Married men with children are the least likely of all males to commit violent crime/homicide.
> 
> It only makes sense to discriminate based on probability. A group comprised of married men, their wives/partners, and their children is likely to remain peaceful and productive.


Careful there a man with a family is a man motivated beyond his own self interest. The thing that drives married men to be calm and stable will also drive them to extremes a single man is not capable of.


----------



## tekniq (Apr 1, 2015)

ApexPredator said:


> Careful there a man with a family is a man motivated beyond his own self interest. The thing that drives married men to be calm and stable will also drive them to extremes a single man is not capable of.


A lot of special forces look for married men and men who are "tethered". Most Navy SEALS are married and have families, not young unattached men. A man who has a family and is motivated beyond self-interest, believe it or not, is a benefit to basically everyone. To his own cause-- he has reason to use caution and behave intelligently in concert with others, rather than because he's into dick waving.

Single men are capable of everything and anything a married man is. An especially strong fight to survive is going to be dependent on the person, because anyone who has faced a "fight or die" situation can attest, the only thing that matters in those situations is one's own neck.

That's not to say all married men should be trusted and single men not trusted... just that it's not an easy thing to discern. I'm going to play dumb, hungry, and helpless as long as I possibly can and just hope my husband doesn't ruin my Pollyanna routine


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

First we are going no where. We chose to be where we are for a reason. It is the right area to be. We will going looking for no one should it ever get that bad. We will help those we can and do our best to preserve our humanity. That does not mean we will be victims.
Sad fact is most today think they are entitled to what you have and will take everything you have. That will be even worst if SHTF.
We are more like to have hard times due to natural disasters they may even fuel social unrest than anything else. They likely will be shorter term and be brought under control unless the social unrest is allowed to go to far . Major natural disaster FEMA and other Government agencies will fail . It will be everyday people that dig us out.
The more of us that are prepared to care for our self and our own the faster any recovery will be. 
But make no mistake. Many of us will do what must be done to defend what is ours. If you come to do harm game on and you will lose.


----------



## Spice (Dec 21, 2014)

I think I'm more likely to stay a part of my community than not; and community members should help each other. As for when I'd be willing to do violence, I'd foresee it as being under the same conditions I'd be willing to do violence now: Thinking me or someone else I should be protecting is in clear, present, and serious danger.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

I have mixed feelings about this topic. The christian part of me wants to help as much as humanly possible. The security part of me wants to be selfish and just focus on me and mine. I guess its going to have to be a balance between being charitable but knowing when the line needs to be drawn. I do believe that sometimes we worry far too much about security and not enough on reestablishing community. Just remember that there are reasons we came together to live in communities and villages rather than playing lone wolf thousands of years ago.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Not everyone, but, some, will have already stayed back to observe to see what you have to offer, or what they can plunder.jmo


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I think Charles and Volture are closer to what I would do and anticipate depending on the scenario. Certain groups of people will be more dangerous then others. The dangerous ones at first will be clear and obvious of their intent I believe. However, as time goes by and after the first wave of die off this may change. Those that are left will be the strongest and most cunning, good or bad. It will be more difficult to discern friend or foe. I am torn in this area. I am not a very trusting man to begin with, but I do see a need going forward for a support group of some kind. Defense, food gathering, water, shelter, long term survival, all would be easier and safer within a group as apposed to going it alone. It's just the wife and I and in the short term we are set. Long term I will need help. I live in a major city and I won't hold out 60 guys for long that's for sure. If I can get to my bug out location my chances are better but that's 800 miles through, what will be by then, open and dangerous territory. In the end I will do the best I can with what I have under the circumstances. One thing is certain. Being prepared puts me way ahead of the game to make the hard choices and survive better or longer then the millions that have no clue and will be among the first wave die off.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I guess I'm in the same group as toolmanky. I have always put up provisions 
with the aim of helping people who might need help. But at the same time, I recognize
the associated problems that go along with such a desire to help. The road to hell is 
supposedly paved with good intentions. In recognizing this, I must balance my desire 
to help with the need to preserve my family's life and our survival especially since my 
main plan is to stay in place. Sitting here typing away, I can second guess how I will 
handle things when some woman and her three kids come to my door looking for food. 
Is she really be herself? Is she and the kids a ruse to scope things out for a larger 
group of looters? While I want to do the right thing by my fellow survivor, if it is on the 
up and up, would this woman and her three kids simply become dependent on me for 
hand outs, until my supplies that I can spare are depleted? If I give her a hand out, will 
she tell others, creating a long line of people outside my door also looking for handouts?
In the society our government has created out there, I can't help but feel my desire to do 
the Christian thing and help others may be my greatest enemy.

I sometimes wonder if I should greet a person looking for a hand out by asking, "Do you 
have any food you give me?"


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

ApexPredator said:


> Careful there a man with a family is a man motivated beyond his own self interest. The thing that drives married men to be calm and stable will also drive them to extremes a single man is not capable of.


It's true. There is no creature more fierce than a man defending his family.


----------



## Anthonyx (Mar 14, 2015)

I'm not sure where the idea that there will be no law enforcement comes from. That may be true for municipal police but not for sheriffs.

The ones who aren't politicians with a badge will still be on the job, even if they have to patrol by horse. If the sheriff finds out that someone is shooting people for trespass those people will probably find themselves on a gallows in the courthouse square.

Managing refugees is one of the sheriff's tasks - and one thing they will crack down on immediately is residents shooting each other or refugees.

They certainly won't be enforcing traffic laws.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

"I'm not sure where the idea that there will be no law enforcement comes from. That may be true for municipal police but not for sheriffs"

I think that is very optimistic. I personally can't see any of them I've known being allowed to survive even as slaves.
Sherrifs, right now are doing "guantanamo" on their own, it's just difficult to tell if it is just straight cashing in or part of the "we all want fed benefits and immunity!" Execute for the cause to get it crowd....? 
Either way, people are going to be a little sore about traitors and wish to select their own security I think.
Unless army does control or muslims have it.


----------



## RNprepper (Apr 5, 2014)

toolmanky said:


> I have mixed feelings about this topic. The christian part of me wants to help as much as humanly possible. The security part of me wants to be selfish and just focus on me and mine. I guess its going to have to be a balance between being charitable but knowing when the line needs to be drawn. I do believe that sometimes we worry far too much about security and not enough on reestablishing community. Just remember that there are reasons we came together to live in communities and villages rather than playing lone wolf thousands of years ago.


I also struggle with this. However I have decided that my preps are simply "loaves and fishes" for God to use as He deems right. He can multiply them just like Jesus did with the boy's loaves and fishes that fed 5,000. I can't have an "us four and no more" mentality and live according to my Christian principles. Anyone who comes to us, however, is going to work their butts off. We do not have a running stream with irrigated fields and pasture land. Food production takes a lot of work. People in our group will harvest from the desert and will eat crickets, packrats, and snakes. They will be well fed and well nourished, but it's not a free ride and there is no room for squeamish whining. My family is already well experienced in eating anything we grow, harvest, hunt, raise, or catch, no matter if it has 2 legs, 4 legs, 6 legs, or no legs. Whiners can keep on walking.

When SHTF there are going to be masses of terrified people who have no idea where to turn for answers. There will be large numbers of suicides and people who lose all hope. I believe every person was born for a time and purpose, and if the opportunity arises that we can be a source of hope and faith to others, we will keep that door open. Dying is not worst case scenario for me - ALL of us will experience death, no matter how extensively we prep. It's gonna happen. BUT.... living without purpose, except for the sole goal of physical survival is a far worse fate. The purpose of my preps is to provide for my family and to wisely assist others as we are able.

That being said, I do not have any qualms about defending the home and family with deadly force against attack or invasion. I will definitely defend my family without hesitation in those situations. No one is going to rape my daughters or threaten my grandbaby without a deadly fight from MamaBear.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

I think its going to be very very tricky I think no plan survives contact and I plan that my plan will fail at some point and ill need to go into contingencies. I plan on going mostly solo (close family) for awhile then reintegrating into a established group. For me I think that first recontact is gonna be hard but I think the value my little group brings to the table will be enticing enough that any established group will want us but here's the question. If a group approaches your group and has its own doc meds security food equipment (sustainable on its own) how do you integrate or coexist? Because honestly I think a group of less than 100 is gonna be easy pickings for predation.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I'm with Smitty. My wife and I live where we do for very good reason.
We saw the lawlessness beginning to become more widespread back around 1990. We moved out of overpopulated suburbia to the country because of it.
Our place is not on any traveled route, refugees from the city will not find us unless they are very lost. And if the gasoline supply has run out, they won't make it this far at all.

No, we did not move here because we could see some apocalypse coming (no one can), but simply because we were tired of crime, drugs, and man's inhumanity to man.


----------



## Anthonyx (Mar 14, 2015)

In my county every other joe is a "special deputy". They have no police power but each has a SO ID and a radio.

Any gang that came in the county making trouble would soon run into the sheriff and about 2000 of his special deputies.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Oh they draft many things here too when they want to


----------



## Oddcaliber (Feb 17, 2014)

My thought is the most dangerous ones will be those that survive but didn't prep to survive. They will be the first of many problems from square one. How we deal with them is up to the individual. If they have meret and are willing to work keep them around but at a distance. Only time will tell if they are worth it.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I hope you are correct about LE of some type remains up and functioning. But if the 
event is truely SHTF, I think most LEOs will head home to defend their families from
looters, gangs, etc. I believe that LE will disappear very quickly. Especially in an 
urban environment and start spreading out from there to the rural areas. I can only
hope that the bad guys will die off of dehydration as quickly as most of the populace.


----------



## Anthonyx (Mar 14, 2015)

The beauty of the sheriff/constable system is that it comes into its own in times of mass disruption.

The SO is the "EMA" in FEMA. The sheriffs normally have ready plans for establishing local refugee camps. If I had a large group of refugees show up I would contact the sheriff to come take them to the local camp.

Normally the sheriff is the commander of the "at large" militia - this means volunteer unregulated militia can only operate under the sheriff's direction. He can issue a call for militia volunteers, but militia duty is not compulsory. However he can act against any militia that tries to operate their own shop.

The real power is the sheriff/constable's authority to deputize - the sheriff can go from house to house "You are deputized - grab your weapon, follow me." This is NOT optional in my state - refuse a call to assist LE and you can be arrested.

Every one of his deputies can resign - he has only to call for militia and start knocking on doors and he will have hundreds of replacements. Should he knock on one of his resigned deputy's door, that deputy gets to serve without pay or go to jail.

There is no way the NGs can manage a wide scale disruption state wide which is why there is a sheriff system - it was here before municipal police forces and still works fine. It is the original "homeland defense".


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Dealing with Survivors? Shoot them again? Sick I know but I had to say it.


----------



## Vulture (Apr 1, 2015)

Motivated by more than their own self interest is what we want. A man without a family will be more likely to see an isolated farm with lots of renewable supplies, a bunch of people (several of whom are female), plenty of water, weapons, and a small army of guard dogs as something he can take over. 

A man with a family will more likely see it as a place where his kids and wife can be safe and have a future, even if he is expected to help work the land. 

How we go about it depends on our first few interactions with people. We are the kind of group who would like to take in those who need it. We would like to build a community. But if the first few groups we encounter are hostile, their heads may end up on fence posts.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

In most experiences I have had on this subject you will know in about 5 seconds. fry'em, walk on by, or welcome them. I also know in a hostile environment a individual does not last long.


----------



## BagLady (Feb 3, 2014)

One thing people in the states need to think about, is the Drug Addicts. They are everywhere. Male and Female. Any age. And they will commit any crime to get what they need. 
By our way of thinking, it will only be children that will get our help. A meal or two, and some education for the parents of how to survive. We won't be taking anyone in unless we know them. 
"Teach a Man to fish..."


----------



## PossumPie (Oct 2, 2014)

Hollywood stereotypes of the old west in some ways were correct. Families that lived isolated lives self sufficient came to the door with their Winchester in hand when they heard a horse coming. It could be their friendly neighbor, the local preacher, or a weary traveler, who they may give a meal to, and in return he may chop some wood for them, or sleep on their back 40. Sometimes the stranger/strangers were looking for trouble, and the Winchester was ready. I really wonder about people who say "I'll shoot anyone who comes on my land" At some point that may backfire. I also wonder about people who want to be "Fine Christians" and give away all of their food/water, etc to the long lines of weary unprepared people. I think it has to be a case-by-case basis decision.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Charles Martel said:


> It's true. There is no creature more fierce than a man defending his family.


Mama grizzly notwithstanding?


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

BagLady said:


> One thing people in the states need to think about, is the Drug Addicts. They are everywhere. Male and Female. Any age. And they will commit any crime to get what they need.
> By our way of thinking, it will only be children that will get our help. A meal or two, and some education for the parents of how to survive. We won't be taking anyone in unless we know them.
> "Teach a Man to fish..."


Psychologists have studied how children left on their own seem to quickly revert to a very animal like nature. They will do what ever it takes to survive including killing you and yours if it gets in their way. The idea of children wondering around on the own after a SHTF incident would scare the crap out me. My nature would be to help them, but at what cost.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

BagLady said:


> One thing people in the states need to think about, is the Drug Addicts. They are everywhere. Male and Female. Any age. And they will commit any crime to get what they need.
> By our way of thinking, it will only be children that will get our help. A meal or two, and some education for the parents of how to survive. We won't be taking anyone in unless we know them.
> "Teach a Man to fish..."


Not only drug addicts, but also the millions of Americans taking prescription drugs for mental issues (depression, etc) or worse, drugs for actual mental illness. When the pharmaceutical pipeline stops, THESE will be the zombies, the "walking dead".
My wife and I will not take anyone in other than our children and their spouses and children. That's it. Our parents are passed away, and the rest of the family can go pound sand.


----------



## TacticalCanuck (Aug 5, 2014)

I would never willingly use lethal force. It's on others not to break my will.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Not only drug addicts, but also the millions of Americans taking prescription drugs for mental issues (depression, etc) or worse, drugs for actual mental illness. When the pharmaceutical pipeline stops, THESE will be the zombies, the "walking dead".
> My wife and I will not take anyone in other than our children and their spouses and children. That's it. Our parents are passed away, and the rest of the family can go pound sand.


Damn! I was all packed and heading towards Ya RPD! :crushed:


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Prepared One said:


> Damn! I was all packed and heading towards Ya RPD! :crushed:


Of course, I would make an exception, or maybe two, for those handy with weaponry. A man has to sleep sometime.


----------



## Urbanprepper666 (Apr 19, 2015)

Being a husband to a wife with disabilities and having young children I know it would be extremely difficult to defend the home and the family against a large group even if the residence is locked down tight and I use some traps I will eventually fall. I have some close friends I grew up with from grade school to group together most single men no children yet. I could not in good faith turn away a women and children even if resources were short because that could be my wife and children if I was to fall. No matter what I would do my best to try and make it work. I know some night say well how many is too much? I could only take in what I can and some may eventually have to get turned away but it would break my heart.


----------



## Anthonyx (Mar 14, 2015)

Vulture said:


> Motivated by more than their own self interest is what we want. A man without a family will be more likely to see an isolated farm with lots of renewable supplies, a bunch of people (several of whom are female), plenty of water, weapons, and a small army of guard dogs as something he can take over.
> 
> A man with a family will more likely see it as a place where his kids and wife can be safe and have a future, even if he is expected to help work the land.
> 
> How we go about it depends on our first few interactions with people. We are the kind of group who would like to take in those who need it. We would like to build a community. But if the first few groups we encounter are hostile, their heads may end up on fence posts.


Too bad you're not here.

Your kind of stand up ethics have vanished in too many Americans.


----------

