Questioning Conventional Survivalist Wisdom: Rural "Retreats"

I have been thinking a lot about patterns of life lately. The way people work, live, shop and when things get bad how they fight. Also how survivalist theory (for lack of a better word) says things should work and how folks actually end up implimenting that theory. A couple of significant flaws are readily apparant to me.

The theory goes like this. Move out to the hinderboonies to a farm/ ranch. Grow lots of your own food and be safe because you are so isolated and well, you do have lots of guns/ big dogs/ pits of boiling oil/ etc. Earn a living through multiple home based businesses. Live happily ever after.

The first flaw has to do with living until things get crazy, if they ever do. Most people work at some sort of job or in a business, not some theoretical home based whatever that is mentioned in a few short psuedo how to books. That is a nice idea, it just doesn't happen for a lot of people. Most businesses exist where there are a decent amount of customers. It makes everything easier. Rural areas and super small towns do not typically have the capacity to support gun shops or much beyond a bar, a gas station or two, a smallish grocery store and if the state laws suck (and you can't buy booze at grocery stores or gas stations) a liquor store. A town of 2,000 can't support a plumber, a lawyer, etc. If you look at how many people out of a hundred need their services in a given month the math does not add up. Those folks and many others have to go elsewhere to ply their trades.

What many rural people do is drive great distances to a bigger town or city to work. Drives of 30, 40, 50 or more miles ONE WAY to work are fairly common in a lot of areas. People chose to do this to be able to afford to buy a home on their wages, or to live in a safer/ better area or to have that rural dream. The reason I believe this is fundamentally flawed as a long term plan is that fuel prices are going to continue to rise. I am not some peak oil doomer but the supply is either stagnant or going down and worldwide demand is definitely going up. Also the value of the dollars in our wallets and paychecks is not doing so well. I believe that driving may well become very expensive if not a real luxury in my lifetime. We probably won't run out of fuel but it will keep getting more expensive. The viability of long commutes alone in a car or even worse a truck/ SUV is going to go away, first for low income folks (this is already happening), then it will gradually slip up the economic ladder. Right now IIRC the national gas price average is about $3.75. Would the math on your commute work at $5 a gallon? What about $7.50 or $10? As years turn into decades I think being withing a short drive, if not biking/ walking distance of where you earn a living as well as at least some limited shopping and services will become more and more important.

The second flaw is more significant if/ when things do in fact go all Mad Max. I don't feel like talking a whole bunch about defensive preparations as they apply to rural survivalists. Lizard Farmer and John Mosby do that at least as well and probably better than I could. However a consistent theme of failure in terms of rural home/ farm/ ranch defense is a lack is manpower. You aren't going to be able to secure a house, barn and a bunch of outbuildings with 2 or 3 adults. Heck just having a single guard 24/7 will grind 2-3 adults down in a hurry if you consider all the other work that has to happen.

To man (not necesssarily with men parse, maybe fill is a better word) a decent guard and have  sufficient force to deter, drive off or kill a decent threat you are probably looking at close to 10 fighters. Note that I said fighters not people, adults or shooters. I am talking about folks who can do things like running with full kit using buddy movement techniques to assault through goblins positions and shoot them in the face. 10 year old Suze with a cute pink .22 and 75 year old Gramps with the walker don't count.  In a lot of groups once you really look there are a lot of support/ home guard types, kids and senior citizens for every viable fighter.

I have talked rural vs small town before 1, 2, 3 and don't feel the need to rehash that part. Rural folks are going to have a harder time getting some sort of collective security thing going. Even if folks are game and want to work together there are fewer of them and they are farther apart. Should they set up some sort of QRF type group it is going to take a lot longer for them to organize and get to where they need to go. If things are wonky enough that vehicle use is limited this would get even worse. Depending on the specifics of population density and distances involved a rural QRF might not be  able to do any better than show up after the fact. Conversely somebody in a small town is more likely to benefit from collective security measures. They will probably get more help, faster than those living rurally.
I do not mean to say that a rural situation can't work now or if things get all Mad Max. Like any sort of plan there are just some downsides that have to be managed. Considering that the upsides of rural living are significant it is worth at least considering. Ultimately some folks will be best suited living rurally and others may not.

Anyway those are my thoughts on that.

Azimuth Check

I have stolen this title from Lizard Farmer who runs an excellent newish blog that focuses on retreat/ farm/ ranch defense. His post was more a check on how folks thought his blog was doing. I will head in a different direction. My azimuth check is more about the direction from where my/ your overall situation was to where we want it to be. I will break it into a few categories.

Finances:
How is your debt situation? Do you have any debt with an adjustable or otherwise particularly high interest rate?

Do you have some savings for if something happens?

Do you have some money accessible to buy things if there is an event that interupts normal banking (this means cash on hand)?

If you can afford it have you considered putting some money into precious metals? There isn't a right or wrong answer to this one. Folks differ widely on this topic.

Health:
Are you and your family of a reasonably healthy body weight? If not are you making tangible progress towards getting there?

Do you have any health/ medical/ dental issues that could be improved but have not been? Maybe you need an elective surgery or have been putting off dental work or need to get into physical therapy to get something worked out. Bringing us back to the last question it is utterly amazing how many medical issues decrease or go away if you get to a reasonably healthy body weight.

If applicable do you keep a stash of essential perscription meds on hand? Keeping 30 days on hand is ok, 90 days is pretty decent and will cover a lot of issues but of course more is better. It may mean paying out of pocket but consider the alternative which is, to varying degrees, very ugly.

If applicable do you have at least a pair of spare glasses in your current perscription (two or three would be better)?


How are your chompers doing?

How are you doing at physical fitness? Can you walk long distances with a load? Run fast for short periods and slower for longer ones? Control your body weight through a variety of tasks and obstacles? Lift heavy things or carry another person?

Skills and Training:

Can you make a fire? At night? Can you do it when it has been raining for a week strait?

Can you find your way around with a compass and a map?

Can you make or improvise some sort of shelter to be as comfortable as possible in a variety of situations?

Can you turn basic staples like flour, rice or wheat into a decent or even tasty meal?

Can you grow or raise your own food?

Can you find or gather food from fishing, hunting, plant gathering or something else really cool I have never heard of?

Can you fix stuff? Mechanical things? Small arms? Brick and mortar? Wood? Plumbing? Electrical?

Can you engage targets with personal weapons in realistic circumstances?

Can you organize a defense be it at home or in some sort of hasty situation?

If the Chinese invade or whateveer can you plan and execute small unit Red Dawn/ partisan/ G style offensive operations?

Stockpile and Equipment:

How is your food storage doing?

Do you have personal weapons as well as the stuff needed to use them? Do you have some spare parts, cleaning stuff and ammunition to keep your guns running without a trip to Wally World or the local gun shop?

How are you doing at storing all of the other stuff like medical supplies, batteries, fuel, cleaning and hygiene stuff, spare parts, etc all to keep on keeping on as well as you can without outside assistance?

Is the stuff you have put together into kits or packages or systems that will meet your needs on short notice?

I am sure there are some good questions that I missed. This covers a ton of ground so do not be ashamed if there are some areas where you fall short. My goal is to give you some areas to think about and see where you are at. Every one of these questions is not equally applicable to all situations. Like many things you would be well advised look at these questions with brutal honesty, action what is applicable and disregard what is not.

Hope you all had a great weekend!

10MM and The Hunting Glock

Compromise is an interesting thing. Sometimes it is amazing and you truly get most of the benefits of both options. I think the Glock 19 specifically and 'compact' sized XD, HK, etc are a great example of this. Other times it completely misses the mark and you keep most of the negatives of each option. Those stupid looking SUV's with the tiny truck beds are a great example of this.

There has been for awhile a movement to get something in between light pleasant to shoot pistol rounds and big heavy, slow and trajectory challenged rounds. Most specifically a round between the 9mm and .45acp. Enter the 10mm. The 10mm which is sort of it's own beast. I would say it completely missed it's intended mark. It is only suitible for large full sized pistols and has a realitively hefty recoil. For a lot of reasons it just never caught on. The round eventually got shortened up and became the .40 S&W which is what it is, some folks like it and others do not.

Just because the 10mm completely missed the mark it was aiming at doesn't mean it didn't hit another one. It's ballistics are somewhere between .357mag and .41mag. It is a pretty big, very fast round that is flat shooting and puts out a ton of energy. Check out 10mm ammo to see for yourself.

I think the 10mm is an interesting round that has a couple viable uses. I think the first is for people who live in places with big dangerous animals all over the place that favor semi automatic handguns. Some folks are just not into wheel guns which rules out the standard big heavy revolver. With a 10mm you could put a lot of big fast rounds downrange in a hurry.

The other nitche is hunting. You can functionally and legally hunt big game with a 10mm. Also Glock makes one which is a huge plus in everything. Being able to hunt with your carry gun (a 10mm is probably too big for convenient CCW but one could carry it) would be cool and a huge confidence builder.

To me the only real downside of a 10mm would be that it isn't a particularly common caliber. However if it is going to be a purpose specific gun or you reload that issue can be managed. If there are bears all over the place but you hate revolvers then consider the 10mm. For the sake of full disclosure I received compensation for this post.

Tueller Drill and Knives: Myth, Fantasy and Reality

FerFal wrote an interesting post today. It left me with three thoughts. 1) The human body is a beautiful and interesting thing which reacts pretty randomly to violent trauma. One healthy 20 year old male can take (just as an example) a whack on the noggin and be fine and another will pop a blood vessel in the brain and be dead on the floor. Short of truly massive trauma not much is guaranteed to kill a human being. While they can make for interesting examples it is best to look at large groups and broad statistical trends and not get bogged down with onesy and twoesy kind of cases.


2) The Tueller Drill is an interesting thing. Read more about it here and here. It is also known as the 21 foot rule and that name is probably more accurate. The drill itself isn't so useful, it is the rule that comes from it and the well tested scientific evidence behind it that are useful. Basically the jist is that it takes right about as fast for a guy with a knife to cover 21 feet and presumably shank you as it does for a reasonably trained individual to draw and fire an accurate shot. It really is useful as an educational tool and protection for armed citizens should they face a goblin with an edged or impact weapon. It helped scientifically dispell the lawyer and prosecutor based idea that guns are magical talismans and unless a guy with a knife is 3 feet away you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. In short the 21 foot rule did a lot to break down the myth that guns are some sort of a magical talisman.

I do however think that the Tueller Drill/ 21 foot rule has created a sort of fantasy around knives.Sure knives are dangerous. Lots of people got killed with pointy and or blunt objects before guns were invented and lots more have been killed with them after guns were widely available. However I strongly disagree with the idea that at under 21 feet knives are better than guns. This is a fantasy because in the Tueller Drill the guy with the knife starts with it in his hand and the guy with the gun starts in its holster. It doesn't mean that knives are supperior, just that under this scenario the guy with the knife has an advantage.

While I do respect what the 21 foot rule has done for LEO's and private armed citizens some folks are taking this too much at face value and not digging deeper. If you dig a little deeper you would see that it is more about two things. First in terms of the real world it shows that action beats reaction. The guy with the weapon in his hands has a real advantage, go figure. Also secondly it shows that certain acts take a perscribed amount of time and thus acts which take less time are faster.

The advantage the knife has in the Tueller Drill is that it is in the hand and that coupled with moving a perscribed distance is comparable in time to drawing and firing a pistol, not that it is intrinsically better than the gun. If the knife was in a sheath or the gun was in a hand it would be a very different drill. It is more about quicker movements and action vs reaction.  It isn't that the knife is better because a bat, tire iron, can of campbells soup, flower or a serving of cotton candy can all have the same advantage. Individual weapons don't matter because we aren't talking apples and apples but are talking apples and oranges. Clearly cotton candy isn't deadly.

When we are talking apples and apples I don't think anybody would choose a knife at 21 feet. How many accurate shots can an average handgunner get off on a male torso sized target in a second and a half? I imagine a couple if they are average and a few if they are above average. Jerry Miculek could ponder the endless questions of life for a half second and them put 6 rounds in the head. It doesn't matter if the knife wielder is a hard core MS13 prison thug that has killed 15 people with blades and also studied Philipino Knife fighting for 20 years. The deadly thug/ martial artist can even have a genuine ginsu knife in his hands but it doesn't matter because he doesn't have a head anymore.

It would be very, very difficult to convince me that a gun is not better than a knife at 21 feet. However 4 feet is a more interesting discusssion. Knives have the advantage that they are hard to impossible to grab from a trained hand or deflect without the consequence of getting cut. Conversely if the barrel of a pistol just has to be pointed away to make it harmless. [Semi automatic pistols have the real disadvantage that they cannot fire 'contact shots'. It doesn't take much pressure on the barrel/ slide to put a semi automatic handgun into battery which makes them useless. This is an area where revolvers have a real advantage though it is so specific of a scenario to IMO factor into your carry choices.] However pistols are IMO more capable of rapidly stopping an opponent than knives, at least when relative skill is factored in. Also if you consider a moderate amount of hand to hand defensive tactics and or movement on the part of the guy with the gun (versus passively being stationary while getting stabbed) and the game changes considerably. FWIW the only time I would take a knife over a gun is if the fight started grappling on the ground.

To me the big take-away of the Tueller Drill is not to hesitate in the use of deadly force if you face the threat of a contact weapon. Also that you need to be highly aware to have the maximum amount of time to react to a potential threat. It isn't so much about individual weapons but states of readiness and speed of employment. You let somebody with an inferior weapon be more ready and employ their weapons faster and you've got issues. For example would you want to assemble and load an AR 15 while somebody 15 feet away threw bricks at you? I don't think so. There are many things you could do but sitting there trying to get the firing pin retaining pin in place would not be a good one. It is about rapidly recognizing a threat and employing the most effective weapon you can as quickly as you can. Hopefully quick enough to avoid the other guy doing irrevocable harm upon you.
 
Thoughts?

AK's and Mini 14's

Suburban Survivalist asked: What range do you feel you can engage with using your AK? I've had a couple (crappy one sold, sweet one stolen), but when my brothers and I considered what carbine to standardize on most of what we read was that the AK isn't very effective past 150-200 yards. Or are you more concerned with having a more powerful round than 5.56?


I picked up a newer model (580 series) Mini-14 late last year and we put it through the paces over Christmas. Practically no difference between scope/irons at 100 yards (making soda cans dance), and decent grouping at 300 yards (scoped). The updated Mini fixed the accuracy issues. But that's just one carbine and we haven't purchased more, yet.

TOR replies: Accuracy with AK's is relative. With AR's and some .308's we can talk about nice small groups which an AK can't make. However when we talk about battlefield accuracy vs man sized targets AK's do fine. My initial assessment (without a dedicated range trip to confirm) is that a servicable AK series rifle is plenty accurate at 200 meters and probably good enough at 300. I sure would not want someone shooting at me from 300 meters with an AK. I've heard their grouping at 400 described as minute of SUV and am inclined to think that is accurate. If one doesn't shoot so well with an AK replacing the relatively crude sights with either better iron sights or an optic will likely improve performance. As for the 7.62x39 cartridge it just happens to be what the common and readily available AK's are chambered in, as well as being a good cartridge and very affordable to stock/ shoot. As a civilian I can use jacketed hollow points as well as heavier match grade ammo which makes caliber matter a lot less than with FMJ's.

The terrain you live in and your worst case scenario dictate how important range is in your plans. However I will offer that in anything less than a highly unlikely mad max zombie apocalypse shooting someone in the dome from multiple football fields away just isn't realistic as it would lead to jail. Imagine being in a court room trying to justify a 1/4 mile shot with a scoped rifle?

YMMV but I like personally like AK's and AR's and don't see a nitche in my collection  for a Mini 14.

How Many Pistol Mags Is Enough?

I got this question in the comments section of a random post. Figured I might as well answer it on here. Like a lot of things this is a pretty personal issue and there probably isn't a right answer. Anyway here is my personal opinion.

To me the minimum for a core (versus the ancient .25 auto you got handed down or whatever) defensive pistol I consider 10 magazines the minimum. My thinking is as follows. My worst case load out for a pistol is 1 mag in the gun and two spares on me. Some jerk in a forum might think carring 10 pistol mags is cool but I carried 3 in an actual war so their opinion is meaningless to me. Here is how I look at 10 mags: 3 to carry, 3 to rotate them with, a couple to lose and a couple to give away/ trade.

I consider 10 a minimum because, particularly if you may purchase more handguns of the same model later or want to stash some mags and ammo here or there that number gets smaller real fast. Also mags wear out and can get lost. Personally I have lost precisely 1 pistol mag in my life but I have misplaced (to me the difference is misplaced stuff gets found eventually) a lot of them. 20 pistol mags might be a bit much but 15 could be a nice number.

If you are a college student or on a low income and chose to get a pistol with expensive mags then 10 is probably plenty. At least get 6. However if you chose to get a pistol with good mags at $20ish or less then 10 mags isn't a big deal and 15 or maybe even more isn't going to break the bank.

One thing to remember about mags is that they are not covered under the Second Ammendment. Their cost and availability can change drastically almost overnight. I remember towards the end of Bill Clinton's gun ban full capacity factory Glock magazines cost somewhere around $100 when you could find them. It was a huge deal that my buddy Chad had ONE full capacity Glock mag. Since the end of said tyranical ban and me coming into survivalism I decided to stock up on a decent amount of mags (10). More recently as I now have a bit of disposable income I have decided that I will not be caught with my proverbial pants down not having plenty of mags should anything happen. Most mags are affordable enough that not stocking up is just foolish. You can buy Glock/AK/AR mags for $20 or under all day long. Most .308 mags are readily affordable as are military issued semi auto pistols (1911, Beretta 92, Browning HP). I have stocked up on mags because I don't want to run out of them and if a friend decided to buy a Glock after a ban, it would be a real nice present to give them a full capacity mag or two for Christmas.

Well those are my .02 cents on that. YMMV

Even More on Shotguns

Kansas Scout said: This is the typical knee jerk advice on pump versus auto's. This is long since outdated and no longer true. Auto's work fine and even the military has gone to them. My Benelli NEVER malfunctions (as you would expect) I doubt you could find that many cheaper autos to jam either. Why pump when you can just pull the trigger? No reason at all.

BTW, I LOVE my Browning Pump. I have owned three of them and they should be considered.

TOR here: As always YMMV. I do agree that semi auto is ideal for defense. I would say that Benelli's and Siaga's have proven to be reliable and rugged enough for the task.  I do agree that a Benelli M4 Super 90 as well as the Siaga (in a defensive configuration w/ short barrel, maybe folding stock, etc) are just really great guns. Siaga's probably have the edge as they can hold more rounds and reload much more rapidly. However they also come at a heck of a price. I previously noted that for the price of a Benelli or a Siaga I could probably get a half dozen used pumps or an actual defensive rifle like an AK/ AR.  As for other more affordable semi auto shotguns I am sceptical but will try to keep an open mind.

To say that some semi auto shotguns being reliable automatically means ALL semi auto shotguns are reliable is just stupid. That would be like saying that since a Glock/ Sig/ HK is reliable every semi auto pistol on the market is also equally reliable. I can honestly say I haven't done much looking in terms of affordable semi auto shotguns. However I haven't heard of a cheaper priced semi automatic shotgun which has a well earned (fielded by .gov/.mil, harshly tested by someone reputable, not just the word of a guy in a forum) reputation for utter reliability and ruggedness. Show me one that has been consistently proven to shoot/ cycle every time under less than perfect conditions with any load by any manufacturer put in it and I will reconsider. Seriously if there is one out there and there is some documentation of its reliability please tell me.

I imagine Browning makes a nice pump shotgun. The issue is with affordability, availability of accessories and replacement parts. I think the cost to get one with a short barrel and a modest stash of spare parts would add up fast. However if you could find a deal on one and had a source for a reasonably priced short (18.5-22") barrel then it could be a decent option.
 
The reason I specifically suggest Remington 870's and Mossberg 500's is that they are rugged, reliable, widely available and affordable. I am certainly not saying there are not better guns out there (read: Benelli and Siaga). However I do not think there are better guns as assessed by the characteristics listed above, ruggedness, reliability, commonality and affordability out there for anything close to what these pump's cost.
 
Thoughts?

More on Shotguns

The last post got some interesting comments. As Commander Zero said shotguns are a really polarizing topic. I think a lot of how you value a shotgun is based upon what you are looking at it for. Shotguns can do a lot of things and as a general purpose weapon they are great. You can take small, medium and fairly large game with them. They can be used against predators or for defense. There is a reason that I and most other people would consider a shotgun part of a basic firearms setup (centerfire pistol, centerfire rifle, .22 and shotgun). A Remington 870 (or a Mossberg 500) with both short and long barrels is increadably versatile. They are a weapon that can do a lot of things. However I think when we look at them strictly as a defensive (or tactical) weapon they are kind of a one trick pony as they don't hold a lot of rounds, are slow to reload and have a fairly narrow envelope of performance.

When it comes to shotguns I favor Remington or Mossberg pump shotguns. They are common, cheap, reliable and rugged. I am disinclined to go with semi auto's because the affordable ones are just not consistently reliable, let alone consistently reliable with a wide variety of ammunition. Siaga's seem nice but you could buy everyone on the block a good used pump for the price of one.

An Interesting Discussion on Shotguns

Is going on at Surviving in Argentina AKA FerFal's blog. My thoughts, rehashed from previous posts and maybe slightly evolved are as follows. The shotgun has some real benefits which relate just loosely to the weapon itself.

A servicable defensive rifle such as an AK, AR or some sort of .308 can be a real trial on a modest budget. For some folks it would take a very long time to save up for or just not be affordable until their situation changes. Defensive shotguns in the form of Mossberg 500's and Remington 870's are cheap. You can get them gently used and perfectly servicable for under $200 in used gun racks and pawn shops until you run out of cash or closet space. Of course like anything you can spend as much as you want. Somebody out there makes a $3,000 high tech custom defensive shotgun (interestingly unless it's a semi auto I would go dollars to doughnuts it's an 870 with lots of bells and whistles). However an 18-20" barreled pump shotgun will do 90% of what it will do at 10% of the cost. Bison's 90/10 rule definitely applies here. My advise is not to church it up. Get a pump shotgun, a sling and something to hold extra shells and practice.

Also there are a lot of bird/ deer/ skeet guns out there which can be readily put into defensive service with an appropriate length barrel and some buckshot. $10 bucks in buckshot and $5 in slugs turns a dove gun into a house gun. Versatility is a strongpoint here. If you live in an oppressive area then shotguns have another plus. They are not specifically targeted by much in the way of anti gun legislation. They are umbiquitious and within their performance envelope an effective weapon.

If you can afford a good semi auto rifle then you should get one. It might be the way to go for a home defense long gun. However if your budget or inclination lean towards a shotgun that is fine too. Understand your chosen weapons strengths and weaknesses and train with it. It is generally more about the person behind the gun than the gun itself.

Homework Assignment for the Week

Unload, clean and reload all of your defensive weapons.

quote of the day

"You quite simply are not going to defend yourself from a determined attack from a numerically superior enemy by yourself. The locals have learned this through centuries of war and genocide is the country and have adapted strong small community ties because of this." 
-FRM Marine Grunt in Lessons on Survival from Rural Afghanistan

Sort of Like a Guy You Really Don't Like Talking a Lot of Trash to Another Guy You Know Is Pro Cage Fighter

Iran offers to escort next "humanitarian" convoy.  Man I hope this happens. Iran seriously needs to get taken down a peg or two and there isn't much nice a good black eye to do that.

Taking Over A Town: I Call Bull Spit

This recent article on survivalblog reminded me of something I have been meaning to write. There are always bunches of ideas floating around in my head and often it takes a post somewhere that touches on the topic to remind me that I had a strong opinion/ article idea.

I grew up on Westerns. When I was in my mid teens and we got non antenna TV Dad and I would often pass windy and rainy winter days by watching the Western Channel. With rare exceptions there were only a few different plots. One of those plots was taking over a town.

It basically goes like this a fairly large group of say 12-40 bad guys show up in a town and ride roughshod over the sheriff and push people around generally doing whatever they want, until the hero comes......The thing is that in real life a loner who has a questionable past but is pure of heart with a white hat who is lightning fast with a Colt .45 doesn't show up. Also more importantly towns wouldn't need one anyway. They can take care of themselves pretty well.

If you think of the bank robbers of that era they did not stick around in an isolated town with their speed of drawing and shooting a 6 gun securing their safety. They grabbed as much cash as they could quickly and rode out of town (hopefully for them) before getting shot to ribbons by farmers and store keepers with rifles and shotguns. Most of the reason people did this is that in the pre FDIC days, if a bank got robbed the money people kept in it was gone. Nowadays average people have little to no incentive to get involved in this sort of crime but if the money in the bank/ grain in the silo/ whatever was essential to the towns very survival people would not just stand by.

I remember in one book Louis Lamour gave his opinion on that plot. Basically he talked about how it would never work and was totally rediculous. There were just too many veterans of the Civil War and the Indian Wars and too many guns in the hands of the townspeople. Some things have not changed. It is often difficult to wrap ones head around how many guns are privately owned by every day, law abiding average Americans. Not everyone is a gun enthusiast with a Glock/Sig sticker on their car but Americans own a ridiculously awesome amount of guns.

This reminds me of my late Grandfather. He was a normal professional guy, pillar of the community, member of the Kiowas and all that stuff.  In their nice normal home in a mid sized town he had a snubby .38, a full sized .357mag, a couple shotguns, a couple .22's and a bolt action rifle. Also one of my old Scout Masters comes to mind. Somehow when I was a bit older we got to talking about worst case scenarios. This Vietnam vet and normal retired guy casually mentioned that he had 4 AK-47's and 10 cases of ammo for them stashed away, as well as enough rimfire for a lifetime of small game. Few veterans I know are without a firearm and most have some sort of a defensive pistol as well as a defensive rifle (mostly AR's in this generation), not to mention whatever sporting arms they own.

Once you start looking at how many people are veterans, cops, hunters or just plain angry rednecks there are a lot. Thanks to the almost 10 year long GWOT we have a lot of young veterans and those Nam era guys are still around, heck a few Korea and WWII vets are still alive and kicking.  There were simply way too many armed, trained and experienced individuals in even the smallest town of say 750 people a lethal proposition.

I can only speak with some measure of experience about the Pacific Northwest and the Deep South as I have lived there. In either of those places there is probably more firepower in 3 or 4 city blocks than any group of bikers/ raiders would want to deal with.  A couple of smart local cops or city officials who are either veterans themselves, which is pretty common or have the basic sense to listen to those with applicable military experience could easily make the juice not worth the squeeze.

People talk about how the gloves would be off when it comes to dangerous, violent criminals (alone or in groups) doing whatever they want. That is true but those folks pretty much do what they want now, if they followed the rules they would not be dangerous violent criminals. The real game changer in the criminal to citizen relationship would be that the gloves would be off for the citizens. The idea of a group of bikers storming into town on screaming Harleys and taking over is the stuff of bad 60's era movies. Citizens and cops have a pretty good idea who the scumbags are, they are just currently bound by rule of law. I can see law and order societies, sheriffs posses, healthy reserve police forces and maybe just strait up vigilantes becoming the norm if things get bad. If you add up the police force, the local gun club, the Elks lodge, angry rednecks and all the veterans in a town of 750-2,000 there are ample numbers to make some thugs seek a weaker target.

If things were bad enough that nationwide law and order were gone and biker gangs could act without any fear of legal consequences they would likely meet a volley of rifle fire about a quarter mile from town. A biker on the move with a rifle or submachine gun (being a crook means you can ignore firearms laws which is a plus) would be no match for a deer hunter in a fighting position with a scoped flat shooting rifle, especially at a couple hundred yards.

Personally I see this sort of roving biker gang being a real issue for travelers, isolated farms, ranches and retreats. Without a serious plan to get outside reinforcements a group of 6-15 adults would have a very hard time dealing with a group of 1-2 dozen armed hard core criminals, especially if a couple of them had even minimal military training. I would be a lot more worried about relatively small groups doing what amounted to home invasions on steroids than some mobile mega gang a la Mad Max.

Some Thoughts on the Ft Hood Massacre

First of all it tragedy. It is unfortunate and sad when soldiers die in combat or training accidents but that is part of the job. It is a real shame when soldiers die in accidents off duty. It is a tragedy when soldiers are killed by a cowardous traitor who wore the same clothes we do. I am glad that fucker lived so we can try him and then fry his ass. Hopefully between now and his execution some fellow prisoners will gang rape him a few dozen times.

This has lead to some discussion about guns and security for our military personnel on post. The focus of this security has been on guarding gates and rotating patrols plus guarding weapons when in transport. I can't blame them for this policy as it is where the threats have historically come from. Maybe that will change as a result of this horrible event.

Some have talked on face book and such about how soldiers who are licensed to carry concealed should not be prevented from doing so on duty at work. While I like the sentiments of this idea and it would be great I just don't see it happening. The military's stance on privately owned weapons is cautious and an immediate 180 on it is quite unlikely. It is probably more practical to focus on arming people who are trained and qualified with government weapons.

The easiest solution I see is arming staff duty Officers and NCO's with pistols and putting a rifle at the CQ desk at each Company. An extra range might need to be run to qualify all the NCO's with the M9 but other than that it would be an easy move to make. Have a clear simple policy that these armed individuals are allowed to use deadly force to protect critical government property, life, limb and eyesight. Basically unless someone tries to break into the arms room or starts shooting people they stay out of it. This solution would be easy to impliment costing nothing and not changing manning requirements and could be done overnight or certainly by next Monday.

Law and Order

There was a comment on yesterdays post that said it is not rational to expect a breakdown of law and order. In part I agree. The first sign of something going all SHTF doesn't make a place go from something out of a Normal Rockwell painting to Mad Max. It is not like some books and such where one day you are cutting the grass and the next day digging a fighting position on the lawn while wearing full kit with a rifle sitting within arms reach.

I think that a complete collapse of law and order is very unlikely without a catastrophic prolonged situation. If people really internalized that the cops (most peoples representation of law and order) were never coming back there is a high chance things could get very ugly.

I think more realistic albeit dark scenarios can be drawn from the LA Riots and Katrina. The first was man made and the second was a natural disaster. Neither of these situations had roving half clothed cannibal bands but lots of people were victims of violent crime. The moral I would draw from these two events (either of which could be the only topic for a week) is that things can get pretty fucked very quickly and unless something changes dramatically they will stay that way for awhile.

While law and order may not completely collapse they can at least temporarily fall to pieces. The bottom line is that when cops aren't coming to 911 calls and there is a general state of anarchy those with criminal inclinations tend to practice their chosen profession with higher then normal enthusiasm. Not preparing for that fact would be foolish.