Would you take others food at gun point? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Would you take others food at gun point?


Pages : [1] 2

Aceman
02-25-2012, 13:08
Before you answer:

At some point, everything runs out. Your stored food has been eaten - whether it was a week, a month, a year...you could run out. Your "sustainable" food isn't sustainable; bad weather, contamination, over hunting/growing, migration, disease, etc. It becomes unsustainable at some point?

Would you?

I was thinking about this as I reflected on some relatives little fresh garden plot in the middle of Seattle. I'm sure they feel it's a great supply in case something goes wrong. I'm also sure there are some far less friendly people that will gladly remove them of the goods when the time comes.

And then it struck me - for the unprepared, it will come in 3-7 days. For the minor preppers, a couple weeks or months. And for the rest, no matter what you do, it can happen. And at some point, likely would.

I know we all frown up and loathe the concept of banditry. But when it is you/your kids or someone else's - would you / could you use force to survive when it all runs out?

LarryD1130
02-25-2012, 13:41
I'm sure if things do get that bad; people will do whatever is necessary to survive. It's a human instinct.

RED64CJ5
02-25-2012, 13:58
I know we all frown up and loathe the concept of banditry. But when it is you/your kids or someone else's - would you / could you use force to survive when it all runs out?

Could I? Yes. I think anyone who says they couldn't is a liar.

Would I? That's what I don't know. I'd like to think that my reliance on God to fulfill my needs would not send me down that path. Instead of relying on one's self, the kind of situation you describe dictates a strong faith for survival.

USMCsilver
02-25-2012, 14:08
I'd do it without hesitation. I hate people, in general, and if it'll keep my family alive, then I really don't think that I'd have a problem with it.

Hopefully it'll never come to anything like that.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Spiffums
02-25-2012, 14:11
Depends on how hungry I am/ the kids are and if I think I can take them. After a certain point all the good intentions and moral right and wrong go out the window. That is why people survived the Donner party.

arclight610
02-25-2012, 14:19
Why begin when you run out? Preparedness means taking before you run out.

Dexters
02-25-2012, 14:21
I know we all frown up and loathe the concept of banditry. But when it is you/your kids or someone else's - would you / could you use force to survive when it all runs out?

In these hypothetical situations require more then one variable change.

Let's say due to a national problem, grocery stores are having delivery disruptions. The store places limits on purchases and people follow the rules and people are treated equally. No problem.

Same as above but everyone some get more then others, some steal, and there then is a run on the stores. We have a problem.

Same with your hypothetical situation. If, someone has food and the people around there follow the law; there most likely will not be a problem or the problem would be manageable.

The person owning such plot such as you describe in an emergency would be wise to harvest it and replant. But they should not expect too much return in a SHTF situation due to insects and animal population growth over the medium term. And if people are stealing their food the farmers are exposing themselves to desperate people.

The idea of this situation, children hungry etc has been discussed before. Some did say they would take what was needed to feed their children if they were starving. If it got to that point I wonder who would be around to steal from and if they were around would the person know it.

In a way the above does not make sense for the people here - they are preppers. So, if their food has run out who will they get food from - other better prepared preppers - people trying not to be found with food, guns ammo and the knowledge to use them? Let's see them go up against LG1 and his friends.

I think many here are of the mind to lay low and the gray man concept in an emergency.

RMTactical
02-25-2012, 14:36
Could I? Yes. I think anyone who says they couldn't is a liar.


I don't.

There is more to life than survival. Many people dont feel that way, I know. If you dont feel that way, it is hard to imagine that others wouldnt feel the same as you... maybe that is a way people rationalize their immoral behavior.

Am I saying that I am above it? I would hope so, but I wouldnt ever know unless I was in that situation. However, I know for a fact that there are people out there that would sooner die than to kill (whether you shoot them or take the last of their food, you are still killing them) another person.

jdavionic
02-25-2012, 15:14
No...stealing is stealing, whether there's a cop on the corner or not.

I would take food off anyone that attempted to harm my family or me. I'd take everything of any value off them - shoes, socks, guns, knives, ammo, food, water, etc.

kirgi08
02-25-2012, 16:38
If the event was so bad that we run outta stores this world ain't worth saving.'08.

NMG26
02-25-2012, 16:53
If they are not an enemy I am not going to point a gun at them.

Syclone538
02-25-2012, 16:57
I have no children, and am currently single. If it's just me, no I would not, with the possible exception of having just seen the people with the food commit murder to steal it themselves.

Put a wife and kids into the mix, and I do not know.

AA#5
02-25-2012, 17:08
I don't.

There is more to life than survival. Many people dont feel that way, I know. If you dont feel that way, it is hard to imagine that others wouldnt feel the same as you... maybe that is a way people rationalize their immoral behavior.

Am I saying that I am above it? I would hope so, but I wouldnt ever know unless I was in that situation. However, I know for a fact that there are people out there that would sooner die than to kill (whether you shoot them or take the last of their food, you are still killing them) another person.

"that is a way people rationalize their immoral behavior."

Bingo! That's an x-ring hit. People find it much easier to do the wrong thing when they convince themselves that everyone would do it.

Dexters
02-25-2012, 17:29
"that is a way people rationalize their immoral behavior."

Bingo! That's an x-ring hit. People find it much easier to do the wrong thing when they convince themselves that everyone would do it.

+1
That is what I was trying to say.

G29Reload
02-25-2012, 18:00
You so much as look at my sandwich funny and its on...

Ruble Noon
02-25-2012, 18:09
Before you answer:

At some point, everything runs out. Your stored food has been eaten - whether it was a week, a month, a year...you could run out. Your "sustainable" food isn't sustainable; bad weather, contamination, over hunting/growing, migration, disease, etc. It becomes unsustainable at some point?

Would you?

I was thinking about this as I reflected on some relatives little fresh garden plot in the middle of Seattle. I'm sure they feel it's a great supply in case something goes wrong. I'm also sure there are some far less friendly people that will gladly remove them of the goods when the time comes.

And then it struck me - for the unprepared, it will come in 3-7 days. For the minor preppers, a couple weeks or months. And for the rest, no matter what you do, it can happen. And at some point, likely would.

I know we all frown up and loathe the concept of banditry. But when it is you/your kids or someone else's - would you / could you use force to survive when it all runs out?

Depends. From liberals and statists, yes.

AK_Stick
02-25-2012, 18:16
Yes. There are circumstances where I can completely agree, and understand doing so.

inzone
02-25-2012, 18:29
NO, not worth losing your immortal soul over....just save your last bullet for yourself and die with dignity rather than becoming a predator...... but use this as a lesson to prep in earnest now.....I think I have enough beans, rice, pasta and crisco and other supplies to feed my family for at least a couple years...after that, well.... we go to be with the Lord......

Glock30Eric
02-25-2012, 18:30
I don't know. I dont think I'll rob for a food. I'll do my best to find a food to eat. I'll eat bugs, worms, plants, bones, and maybe grass with whatever. I know it will be very nasty but at least I'll survive.

If I had to rob for a food then they will never forget my face. They will try everything to take a revenge. They will also spread the word of mouth in a community that I have robbed him and that's far worse than robbing for just food to survive.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

michael e
02-25-2012, 18:31
No one can truely say how they would handle it until in that situation.

Commander_Zero
02-25-2012, 19:00
Im sure the followup question to this will be the next logical step in this progression - once there no food to take at gunpoint from others, will you start shooting other people to eat them? I'm rather not looking forward to that discussion.

NMG26
02-25-2012, 19:03
No one can truely say how they would handle it until in that situation.

No one can really say, that they won't terrorize others for their own gain? BS.

Maybe people really don't know themselves well enough to say, "I would not".

humanguerrilla
02-25-2012, 19:22
No, I would not.

quake
02-25-2012, 19:33
Only a scumbag harms the innocent.

HexHead
02-25-2012, 19:38
Depends. From liberals and statists, yes.


Count on it.

Arvinator
02-25-2012, 20:40
While I am not saying I am a prepper or how if what I have on hand, I do listen to the Red Cross suggestion of at least a 3 day supply of food and water on hand. Regardless of how much food I have or a person has I do not suggest stealing. I think a garden, fishing, hunting, or stocking up is better way to have food.
I do not ask or invite trouble but I cannot stand a thief and taking food from my loved ones woudl be a way I would have to take matters in a very pissed off and personal way...

Bolster
02-25-2012, 20:50
I would hope not.

I would be very disappointed in myself if I were ever to steal from another person (unless that person or entity had first stolen from me. To wit, the government steals from me on a regular basis, so different rules apply there.)

rgregoryb
02-25-2012, 20:53
Nope....

AA#5
02-25-2012, 21:00
Nope, Never. There are worse things than dying.

Like causing someone else's death by stealing their last bit of food or water.

I'm sure some people could live with themselves, but I couldn't.

LASTRESORT20
02-25-2012, 21:01
`I would take food from an "enemy"......I will "find" an enemy to take it from....**If things got that bad....But...There is no reason one can not be prepared for a long ...long time....Unless they are just plain naive ....

Food Plus water is a good mix.............

Dexters
02-25-2012, 21:07
`I would take food from an "enemy"......I will "find" an enemy to take it from....**If things got that bad....But...There is no reason one can not be prepared for a long ...long time....Unless they are just plain naive ....

Food Plus water is a good mix.............

How will you identify someone as the "enemy"?

SpectreRider
02-25-2012, 21:10
If it comes down to it, others ARE food.

RED64CJ5
02-25-2012, 21:13
I don't.

There is more to life than survival. Many people dont feel that way, I know. If you dont feel that way, it is hard to imagine that others wouldnt feel the same as you... maybe that is a way people rationalize their immoral behavior.


People do rationalize their immoral behavior, sadly. I would like to think I am above it but I decided to be 100% honest with myself and state that I don't think any of us are above it either.



Am I saying that I am above it? I would hope so, but I wouldnt ever know unless I was in that situation. However, I know for a fact that there are people out there that would sooner die than to kill (whether you shoot them or take the last of their food, you are still killing them) another person.

Sure. Lots of people make the statement they'd rather die than kill. But have they ever been put to the test? Of course not, in most cases. It is easy to sit around and theorize about what man's capable of doing...

This is why I broke down my response into two answers.... Could I? Possibly. But, since you responded to that question I will elaborate to say "Possibly, but I pray that I wouldn't." Would I? I don't know, again prayerfully not.

LASTRESORT20
02-25-2012, 21:16
How will you identify someone as the "enemy"?




`When `they` make a move....whether suttle...or in a more direct manor....In hard times there will be plenty....One does not always have to "Eliminate" an enemy.... Actions and mannerisms "telegraph" important information. :yawn:

Bolster
02-25-2012, 21:32
Translation: Take offense from someone who has food, even if the offense is subtle...then they are an enemy. Now it's OK to take their food.

Always gotta get that moral justification in place before aggressing against others.

RMTactical
02-25-2012, 21:38
Sure. Lots of people make the statement they'd rather die than kill. But have they ever been put to the test? Of course not, in most cases. It is easy to sit around and theorize about what man's capable of doing...

This is why I broke down my response into two answers.... Could I? Possibly. But, since you responded to that question I will elaborate to say "Possibly, but I pray that I wouldn't." Would I? I don't know, again prayerfully not.

I'm not specifically stating that people wouldnt do such a thing just because they said they wouldnt. However, I know of specific instances where people put their own life in jeopardy or even straight up gave up their own life to protect/save others.

Since we know that these people exist, it is naive I think to say that nobody is above it.

bulletandgrunt
02-25-2012, 21:54
While I don't consider myself a "prepper", my plan is to stock up on weaponry and ammunition. When I run out of food, I will seek out those with food stores and take it.

Just my plan though.

Ruble Noon
02-25-2012, 22:01
While I don't consider myself a "prepper", my plan is to stock up on weaponry and ammunition. When I run out of food, I will seek out those with food stores and take it.

Just my plan though.

That is definitely a plan. However, did you ever consider that you might become part of the food chain in your pillaging?

RMTactical
02-25-2012, 22:03
While I don't consider myself a "prepper", my plan is to stock up on weaponry and ammunition. When I run out of food, I will seek out those with food stores and take it.

Just my plan though.

More like a suicide mission. You die by starvation or by the gun ultimately either way in a long term scenario.

Ruble Noon
02-25-2012, 22:12
How will you identify someone as the "enemy"?

Democrat voter registration list?

kirgi08
02-25-2012, 22:33
While I don't consider myself a "prepper", my plan is to stock up on weaponry and ammunition. When I run out of food, I will seek out those with food stores and take it.

Just my plan though.

Good luck with that.More than likely you'll end up fertilizer in a garden somewhere.We don't cotton ta looters very well.'08.

bulletandgrunt
02-25-2012, 22:37
More like a suicide mission. You die by starvation or by the gun ultimately either way in a long term scenario.

Long term....possible to be a casualty. Doubt I'd die of starvation. I wouldn't wait until I was completely out of food. I'm quite confident in my tactics, marksmanship, and tactical proficiency. I'm sure I could liberate rations from those ill prepared to deal with me fairly easy. Some of the more prepared may be a challenge, not the first choice obviously.

Ruble Noon
02-25-2012, 22:51
Long term....possible to be a casualty. Doubt I'd die of starvation. I wouldn't wait until I was completely out of food. I'm quite confident in my tactics, marksmanship, and tactical proficiency. I'm sure I could liberate rations from those ill prepared to deal with me fairly easy. Some of the more prepared may be a challenge, not the first choice obviously.

You are pretty confident about your abilities. Are you equally confident about your opponents inabilities?

bulletandgrunt
02-25-2012, 22:57
You are pretty confident about your abilities. Are you equally confident about your opponents inabilities?


To underestimate is foolish. I'm very confident in that I am more able than the vast majority. A good offense will also include a good plan for a retrograde when met with superior firepower.

RMTactical
02-25-2012, 23:06
Long term....possible to be a casualty. Doubt I'd die of starvation. I wouldn't wait until I was completely out of food. I'm quite confident in my tactics, marksmanship, and tactical proficiency. I'm sure I could liberate rations from those ill prepared to deal with me fairly easy. Some of the more prepared may be a challenge, not the first choice obviously.

I would say certain to be a casualty. You will be among the first to die.

codecowboy
02-25-2012, 23:21
I find the whole concept to be morally and ethically stomach turning.

Now that I have that out of my system let me tell you a story. My wife was having a sharp pain near her left kidney last Tuesday. She had a doctors appointment set up for Wednesday morning. She woke me up at 3am in terrible pain and crying. We immediatley went to the ER of one of the nicest hospitals around. We sat there for 9 FREAKING HOURS before they gave her anything for the pain or even began tests. It was 12 hours door to door total.

I tell you this because after 9 hours of watching my wife suffer in pain I was dangerously close to kicking down the door and "convincing" a doctor to see her immediately. I can not imagine what my reaction would be to watching her starve.

kirgi08
02-25-2012, 23:35
To underestimate is foolish. I'm very confident in that I am more able than the vast majority. A good offense will also include a good plan for a retrograde when met with superior firepower.

Ya seem ta forget the "vast" majority in the prep field are also trained by uncle sam.I'm a member of the 1000yd club.You sir are the exact reason we will repel all boarders.

You seek ta steal from folk that plan ta make up for yer lack of it.You sir are a thief and a target.You plan ta augment your 7Ps by killing and looting.Come ta my AO,see how ya fare.'08. :upeyes:

Linh40
02-26-2012, 00:32
Guess I'll be waiting at those FEMA distri points for food.

But I do not want to possibly kill someone to steal their food or to use any type of force for that. As far as what happens when I'm staving.....I really don't know. Haven't been in that situation yet. But so far God has always provided so I don't see God stopping anytime.

Could I or would I? I really can't say but I really don't want to go that route.

Syclone538
02-26-2012, 02:10
While I don't consider myself a "prepper", my plan is to stock up on weaponry and ammunition. When I run out of food, I will seek out those with food stores and take it.

Just my plan though.

Gunkid get out of prison?

lawman800
02-26-2012, 02:36
We can all say that from the luxury vantage point we have now but when you are on your 5th week of having little food and you see someone with some edible food... your mind will not be in the same state as now, I tell ya.

4TS&W
02-26-2012, 02:52
Only if there is chocolate involved...

Mmmmmmmmm... Chocolate....

:)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

9mm +p+
02-26-2012, 03:01
Yep, if I needed to. I'd kill for survival as well, there in lies the diff between those who WILL survive and those that won't.

Glock30Eric
02-26-2012, 06:52
Only if there is chocolate involved...

Mmmmmmmmm... Chocolate....

:)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Bacon covered with chocolate..... That would be a dangerous food to offer during those time.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TN.Frank
02-26-2012, 08:16
I would like to think that we'd all band together in large enough groups that we could pool our food and take care of everyone with out a few having to resort to stealing/killing to survive.
I ask my Nephew about weather he was putting stuff back for 2012, he's a Nashville Cop and he said, "Why, he has guns, he'd take what food he needs." don't know if he was just pullin' my chain or serious but still, makes ya' kind of stop and think.

racerford
02-26-2012, 08:17
Yep, if I needed to. I'd kill for survival as well, there in lies the diff between those who WILL survive and those that won't.

You would be one that won't, eventually.


You have decided already that you will act wihtout ethics and cannot be trusted. You will be among the first to be suspected and executed.

Herein lies the problem, if there are people that have food, there will be animals to eat, maybe not desireable animals, but edible animals nonetheless. What you have said is that you would rather kill people than eats rats, and plants, and edible insects? Or you are just too lazy or ignorant to do the work to feed yourself. Either of those 2 traits says you will definitely not survive more than a few years.

TangoFoxtrot
02-26-2012, 08:48
Quote "But when it is you/your kids or someone else's - would you / could you use force to survive when it all runs out?"

If I could not buy it, grow it, hunt it or trade for it and I was in dire need who knows what I would do? I just hope it never comes down to that....Would the world be worth living in?

Dexters
02-26-2012, 10:21
`When `they` make a move....whether suttle...or in a more direct manor....In hard times there will be plenty....One does not always have to "Eliminate" an enemy.... Actions and mannerisms "telegraph" important information. :yawn:

If you were to tell a friend you were with - how would you identify the enemy. I don't know what to look for from what you wrote.

Warp
02-26-2012, 11:48
No one can truely say how they would handle it until in that situation.

This, probably.

Kind of like cannibalism.

Actual starvation does things to people.

Bolster
02-26-2012, 11:55
...You have decided already that you will act wihtout ethics and cannot be trusted. You will be among the first to be suspected and executed...

I actually agree with this...seems to me one thing persistently overlooked by preppers is that coalitions will quickly form after a 'situation.' Lone predatory wolves will have a hard time of it, and will quickly be hunted down and eliminated as threats. They will be hunted by gangs, teams, and organized groups who will have the simple advantage of numbers and allies.

Rough analogy, but have you gone paintballing recently, just you on your own? You'll run up against teams that will eliminate you in short order, no matter how good your skills.

You'll notice that in "rougher times" (Rome, Medieval Europe, even Wild West) your honor kept you alive. That's why honor was such a big deal back then. It allowed you to participate in civilization.

I'm guessing that post-fall, we will see a rebirth of honor and morality, which will serve the functional purpose of saying, "This person can be trusted."

People who say, "I have a gun and will take what I want," need to be weeded out of society quickly and without remorse, so that the rest of us can get on with it.

nightwolf1974
02-26-2012, 11:57
Why begin when you run out? Preparedness means taking before you run out.

I somewhat agree here. BUT, only if it was completly and totally as the last resort!

AK_Stick
02-26-2012, 13:05
I actually agree with this...seems to me one thing persistently overlooked by preppers is that coalitions will quickly form after a 'situation.' Lone predatory wolves will have a hard time of it, and will quickly be hunted down and eliminated as threats. They will be hunted by gangs, teams, and organized groups who will have the simple advantage of numbers and allies.

Rough analogy, but have you gone paintballing recently, just you on your own? You'll run up against teams that will eliminate you in short order, no matter how good your skills.

You'll notice that in "rougher times" (Rome, Medieval Europe, even Wild West) your honor kept you alive. That's why honor was such a big deal back then. It allowed you to participate in civilization.

I'm guessing that post-fall, we will see a rebirth of honor and morality, which will serve the functional purpose of saying, "This person can be trusted."

People who say, "I have a gun and will take what I want," need to be weeded out of society quickly and without remorse, so that the rest of us can get on with it.



I always laugh when I see comments like this.


American's can't work togeather now when things are good, you think people are going to band togeather, and forget all their upbringing and the way they've acted for dozens of years before the event?


A year, two years, after an event, yes, maybe small groups/townships will have started to form back up. But before that, they're are going to be too many threats, and too much to get done. I just don't see it happening. Except in some smaller communities that already function like that.

lawman800
02-26-2012, 14:29
^^^
This

h2oman1975
02-26-2012, 15:06
not sure if i would or not. theres alot of ways to hunt,fish, and eat off the land before i would take something from others. i would at least try my best to gather food before i think about doing that to someone else that needs it as much as i do.

dudel
02-26-2012, 15:31
At some point you're going to run out of people to steal it from. Eventually, you're going to come up against someone with better/more weapons than you.

If they have food at this point, and you don't it might be because they are better prepared than you are. You might want to consider that BEFORE you show them your weapon.

If we're at that point, how much do you really want to go on? I would hope I was above that. I would hope that my faith was strong enough to keep me from that. I would hope that I have planned so as to avoid that situation. I would hope that I had enough skills/goods to trade. I would hope that I never have to find out.

It's one thing to defend your property; quite another to take someone elses.

Warp
02-26-2012, 15:47
not sure if i would or not. theres alot of ways to hunt,fish, and eat off the land before i would take something from others. i would at least try my best to gather food before i think about doing that to someone else that needs it as much as i do.

When everybody and their brother tries to hunt, fish and eat off the land, you'd better live in Wyoming if you want that to last very long

RMTactical
02-26-2012, 15:54
This thread has had me thinking quite a bit, but I admit I am a little shocked that we have people openly admitting they would commit what amounts to murder and theft if things got rough... You know these people are out there, but you dont expect them to be so brazen as to openly state they would do it... or that they would be amongst ourselves (sorry, I guess I think too highly of you guys! :) ).

Some of you may already realize this or are not as trusting, but to those who do not, let it be a lesson or awakening to those of us preparing for the worst. Some people, even those that may seem normal otherwise, will need to be treated as a serious threat. Take your security concerns VERY seriously! Train everyone in your group to use weapons, firearms or improvised weapons, whether they are an adult or a child...

Keep your preps and assets secure and preferably concealed, maybe even booby trapped. Don't allow others to know how well you are prepared, even those whom you may choose to take pity on and/or help.

Dexters
02-26-2012, 16:04
This thread has had me thinking quite a bit, but I admit I am a little shocked that we have people openly admitting they would commit what amounts to murder and theft if things got rough...

We've had these discussions in the past and got similar replies. Some were people with children who said they would do anything to keep their family alive.

It really doesn't make much sense that a person that is starving is some how going to leave there house and some how find that which is trying to stay hidden - a smart, well fed, well stocked person/family with guns and ammo who knows that they have something to protect.

If anything there will be few people around. The people here preppers so they should outlive the average person. So not too many people around. Now leave your house, wife and children to possibly be attacked other desperate people and make yourself a target to go in search of people prepared for your coming. Even if you find these people what makes you believe you can overcome their defenses?

It doesn't make sense when you play it out over time.

RMTactical
02-26-2012, 16:18
We've had these discussions in the past and got similar replies. Some were people with children who said they would do anything to keep their family alive.

It really doesn't make much sense that a person that is starving is some how going to leave there house and some how find that which is trying to stay hidden - a smart, well fed, well stocked person/family with guns and ammo who knows that they have something to protect.

If anything there will be few people around. The people here preppers so they should outlive the average person. So not too many people around. Now leave your house, wife and children to possibly be attacked other desperate people and make yourself a target to go in search of people prepared for your coming. Even if you find these people what makes you believe you can overcome their defenses?

It doesn't make sense when you play it out over time.

Precisely, which is why these types of thieving murderers (especially those who have ZERO preparations) will be among the first to die. The "zombies" (I use this term very loosely, not in the literal sense) may even end up getting them before a prepper has to.

Kingarthurhk
02-26-2012, 16:26
NO.:steamed:

Mr Spock
02-26-2012, 16:39
I don't.

There is more to life than survival. Many people dont feel that way, I know. If you dont feel that way, it is hard to imagine that others wouldnt feel the same as you... maybe that is a way people rationalize their immoral behavior.

Am I saying that I am above it? I would hope so, but I wouldnt ever know unless I was in that situation. However, I know for a fact that there are people out there that would sooner die than to kill (whether you shoot them or take the last of their food, you are still killing them) another person.

For those people who would sooner die than to kill... Would they sooner kill their spouse and/or kid(s) or kill a stranger? In the scenario from the OP, the choice isn't simply kill, or don't kill. It is, kill, or watch your family die due to your inaction. This certainly adds another dimension to the concept since many of those people you mention surely would kill to protect their family. In this scenario, it can be argued that the lines of what is considered "protecting your family" have been blurred or moved significantly. For the single man or woman this is much simpler than the man or woman upon whom others depend completely for survival.

AK_Stick
02-26-2012, 16:40
Precisely, which is why these types of thieving murderers (especially those who have ZERO preparations) will be among the first to die. The "zombies" (I use this term very loosely, not in the literal sense) may even end up getting them before a prepper has to.



Its not the guys with zero preps you have to worry about.

Its the guys who took the time to prep, plan, and stockpile and start to run low you need to worry about.

RMTactical
02-26-2012, 16:54
Its not the guys with zero preps you have to worry about.

Its the guys who took the time to prep, plan, and stockpile and start to run low you need to worry about.

Only if you have outlasted him...

Mr Spock
02-26-2012, 16:54
Its not the guys with zero preps you have to worry about.

Its the guys who took the time to prep, plan, and stockpile and start to run low you need to worry about.

For every prepper, there will always be those better trained/armed than you, and those better prepped than you. The problem is when those two people are not one in the same. Then, like AK mentioned, you get the well armed/trained/fed(for the time being) prepper who is getting increasingly desperate.

Read about the numerous accounts of cannibalism as a means of survival throughout history and you'll see that people are capable of anything in the face of starvation. The desire to satiate hunger is one of the most primal, instinctive urges a person has, so it is no surprise that any person could capable of acting like a common animal to fulfill it if the circumstances were right.

RMTactical
02-26-2012, 16:55
For those people who would sooner die than to kill... Would they sooner kill their spouse and/or kid(s) or kill a stranger? In the scenario from the OP, the choice isn't simply kill, or don't kill. It is, kill, or watch your family die due to your inaction. This certainly adds another dimension to the concept since many of those people you mention surely would kill to protect their family. In this scenario, it can be argued that the lines of what is considered "protecting your family" have been blurred or moved significantly. For the single man or woman this is much simpler than the man or woman upon whom others depend completely for survival.

Just another way to rationalize murder/theft IMO.

Mr Spock
02-26-2012, 17:00
Just another way to rationalize murder/theft IMO.

Which are you saying I am rationalizing? Murdering your kids by letting them starve or murdering someone else by taking their food for your kids? I never said either was correct, just that turning it into a self-righteous black and white question of morality was oversimplifying the choice. When the survival of one's children could be at stake, there is certainly a moral gray area that must be acknowledged.

Warp
02-26-2012, 17:13
Which are you saying I am rationalizing? Murdering your kids by letting them starve or murdering someone else by taking their food for your kids? I never said either was correct, just that turning it into a self-righteous black and white question of morality was oversimplifying the choice. When the survival of one's children could be at stake, there is certainly a moral gray area that must be acknowledged.

Yes .

Ruble Noon
02-26-2012, 17:20
This thread has had me thinking quite a bit, but I admit I am a little shocked that we have people openly admitting they would commit what amounts to murder and theft if things got rough...

You shouldn't be shocked. Look at all the crime we have now while there is law enforcement, people risking their life for the little cash in a convenience store register, people rioting over the newly released Nike shoes. Now, what happens when law enforcement breaks down? What will the nearly fifty percent of leeches in this country do when their handouts stop? Look at what happened during Katrina, looting, rapes and murders by both the "good" and the bad guys.
I am planning on being as self sufficient as possible when or if the SHTF. If I come across supplies that no one is laying claim to, yes, I will liberate them for myself but I do not plan on seeking others out to rob in that kind of situation.

RMTactical
02-26-2012, 17:55
Which are you saying I am rationalizing? Murdering your kids by letting them starve or murdering someone else by taking their food for your kids? I never said either was correct, just that turning it into a self-righteous black and white question of morality was oversimplifying the choice. When the survival of one's children could be at stake, there is certainly a moral gray area that must be acknowledged.

Disagree.

If you failed to provide for your family, sure, you failed... and you may have to face God with that on your conscience, but still better than being a murderer.

lawman800
02-26-2012, 18:34
Disagree.

If you failed to provide for your family, sure, you failed... and you may have to face God with that on your conscience, but still better than being a murderer.

Easy to say now. Talk is cheap.

We can argue this point forever, but nobody, and I mean nobody, will know until the time comes.

The supposedly strongest among us have failed when the time came... priests, cops, great leaders of prominence, name it. We are all human and that means in the end, we are mammals and therefore, animals with a survival instinct.

How that plays out has to be seen in the real world and not on an internet forum moralizing over it.

nightwolf1974
02-26-2012, 18:57
Which are you saying I am rationalizing? Murdering your kids by letting them starve or murdering someone else by taking their food for your kids? I never said either was correct, just that turning it into a self-righteous black and white question of morality was oversimplifying the choice. When the survival of one's children could be at stake, there is certainly a moral gray area that must be acknowledged.



right or wrong, this is a real question that every survivalist/prepper has to wrestle with. if the world goes #$%^, where do you draw the line at morality? at this point I have no kids( none that I know about anyway:whistling:), so Idon't have to worry about any starving. BUT, if I did, and it came down to taking from others to prolong thier lives, I would!!
I'll just try like the dickens to avoid having to lower myself to that however! what's the point of surviving just to become a mindless creature that is driven by primal urges. so, you can see, that I see both sides of this question.

We all have to what "we" think is right for US!!!!

jdavionic
02-26-2012, 19:20
To me, the key here is to have enough to get through the initial period. For example, let's say a pandemic takes 2-3 wks to run through the population. Then you figure the infrastructure will take a lot of time to recover. Perhaps 6 months is plenty.

Economic disaster...maybe much longer is needed.

Point being, that's what prepping is all about...assessing the risks and making preparations to mitigate those risks so you don't put yourself in these decision scenarios.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ArmoryDoc
02-26-2012, 20:01
I personally am very appreciative of this thread. This thread is valuable training material for my friends and family that can be used to show them the reality of what I've been saying about people.

I am sending this thread URL to them, that they can come here and see it in person. If this truth of this thread doesn't provide enough evidence then not much else will. Thanks for your candid honestly folks. Keep it coming.

Dexters
02-26-2012, 20:05
I personally am very appreciative of this thread. This thread is valuable training material for my friends and family that can be used to show them the reality of what I've been saying about people.

I am sending this thread URL to them, that they can come here and see it in person. If this truth of this thread doesn't provide enough evidence then not much else will. Thanks for your candid honestly folks. Keep it coming.

Civilization is a thin veneer.

uhlawpup
02-26-2012, 20:38
I will only take food from people who cannot spell or punctuate properly. Oh, and those whose intelligence quotient is less than 115.

I should run out of ammunition before I run out of food.

quake
02-26-2012, 21:01
Which are you saying I am rationalizing? Murdering your kids by letting them starve or murdering someone else by taking their food for your kids?
There's a huge difference (that RMT pointed out) between failing your family and murdering your family. Using your words, failing to rescue all the children from a burning house is murdering them. It's not; it's failing them, but it's nowhere near murdering them.

If a man fails to provide his family with fire extinguishers, he has contributed to that failure. But he still didn't murder them.

Even if he unintentionally caused the fire, he didn't murder them. If he started the fire intentionally, that's murder.

If he kills a neighbor kid and then uses the blood from that dead kid's body to smother the flames, that's murder.

Trying and failing isn't murder. It's horrific and hard to forgive yourself for, but to call it murder is as blatantly incorrect as calling it burglary or embezzlement.


...turning it into a self-righteous black and white question of morality was oversimplifying the choice. When the survival of one's children could be at stake, there is certainly a moral gray area that must be acknowledged.

Using that logic would mean that it's ok to rob our neighbor to pay our mortgage, if it was an extremely cold winter and we had nowhere else to live. We don't have the right to do that; that's a black and white absolute.

I never, never have the right to kill your wife simply because she has something my kids need. That's a black and white absolute.

I don't have the right to kill little Suzy Jenkins for her jacket and lunchbox (or rob her of them), even if my kids are cold and hungry. That's a black and white absolute.


There may be unpleasant responses and heart-rending choices, but there is no moral grey area in this question. Only scumbags harm the innocent.

LongGun1
02-26-2012, 21:22
I really doubt most Americans have known real hunger..

..the "haven't eaten anything for days all you can think about" hunger!


The "so bad you eat tree bark or grass" hunger!

And hurl afterwards!

Combine that hunger with being very cold..

..sleeping outdoors in winter with just the clothes on your back.

This scenario is the end result of an abusive former Green Beret father with an alcohol problem..

..combined with a teenager tired of getting thrown into and thru walls & worse!


A very short distance away...an elderly woman in a warm house with plenty to eat!

Ask me how many times it crossed this teenager's mind of taking by force or intimidation food & shelter from this helpless old lady!

It did not...not even once!

On one cold night...the shivering, starving 6' 6" 150 lb teenager laying on a bed of straw in the back corner next to this elderly lady's back yard trying to sleep...was surprised when she called out to him..

(he did not know she knew he was there)

..with an armful of blankets & a plate of hot food! :supergrin:


This was the way of life until the father & son reconciled shortly afterwards!

So...I know how I would react if faced similar circumstances in the future.


If TEOTWAWKI & somehow I was separated from my material preps..

..and needed food & shelter..

I would attempt to barter, trade services, etc for same..

...failing that...I would hunt, snare my food, fish for it, you name it..(or go hungry)

..taking by force anything from a innocent non-combatant is simply not an option.


My view on Personal Property Rights are absolute & inviolate..

..what is yours is yours..

..what is mine is mine!

And property can be defended up to & including to the death of the taker(s)!



Me & mine have a code we live by...it transcends hunger!

Shaming your family is foremost in your consciousness!


That being said.....if attacked...we keep what we kill..

..any possession of an predator or attacker (dead or alive) is ours! :whistling:

An abandoned, burnt-out Jiffy Mart with cans of food strewn about the parking lot...fair game!


Could I park a bullet in a predator....or a thousand...yes..

..but the same while taking food from an innocent...

..without a doubt...NO!


No matter how hungry i am...

Not only could I not live with myself..

..I know one day I would face my Creator.

Unlike those who have a malfunctioning moral compass..

..my core view of the will & the wrath of the Creator is very much Old Testament!


If traveling & a major SHTF occurs..

..hopefully I or we will be near some of those who we have reciprocal agreements with..

..but failing that & if offered sanctuary by strangers..

..I/we have a duty to assist and protect the ones offering same.


Upon departure..

..we leave with what we bring...no more, no less..

..unless previously offered/traded/bartered.


While provided sanctuary..

..the ones providing same have absolute authority over the premises..

...assigning work & security details, etc..


If I/we disagree with way things are run..

..then I/we are free to vote with our feet with any possessions we brought..

..unless that action would violate any prior agreement.


If the sanctuary were attacked..

..I/we would provide the same defense we would provide our own homes..

..up to & including the loss of life & limb!


What I state is not novel..

..but is similar to what transpired throughout previous generations.


And those predators who would take from others..

...may find their lives forfeit & their heads impaled on stakes..

..as a stark warning to others not to attempt the same! :shocked:


It has happened throughout history..

..& I can envision it happening yet again! :whistling:

RWBlue
02-26-2012, 23:31
i'm sure if things do get that bad; people will do whatever is necessary to survive. It's a human instinct.

+ 1

RedHaze
02-27-2012, 00:01
It starts with taking what you think you need from someone weaker than you.

And ends like this...
http://www.thinkhero.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/the-road-movie-05.jpg


I for one. Fear my God, and will be an example for Him to my children until the end.

mdsn969
02-27-2012, 00:38
I am truly shocked and saddened by some of the answers here :crying:

Spectacular answer LongGun1 :wavey:

AK_Stick
02-27-2012, 01:22
Spectacular, but words are wind.



Its fine to say something like that. Its a whole different ball game to look into your 6 yr olds eyes and realize he's going to die if you don't find some food.



Deep down, humans are animals. Pushed hard enough, long enough, or with the right trigger and they will revert.

You can claim otherwise, but history's shown repeatedly that its true.

eb31
02-27-2012, 02:16
I'd do it without hesitation. I hate people, in general, and if it'll keep my family alive, then I really don't think that I'd have a problem with it.

Hopefully it'll never come to anything like that.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk


Couldn't have said it better myself.

uhlawpup
02-27-2012, 03:19
Long gun has the right answer.

Humans are animals, but they are social animals. Society is how they have survived. Cooperation will continue. Predators will be quickly subdued or despatched by those who work together. That is the way it has been, and the way it will be.

jdavionic
02-27-2012, 04:36
If it reached the point of staring at starving children, then predators would become prey. Until that point, I would not see where the risk was justified...unless they were targeting me. If that were the case, then I'd either be dead or they would. If the latter, I'd take their food and anything else of value.

As for knowing 'real' hunger, I have known it. I've had the misfortune as it appears some others have of having no food and no money for food, along with not having other conveniences that most take for granted. With that said though, it's much easier dealing with such situations by yourself versus the same situation with loved ones enduring it with you.

As for those that plan on taking a predatory role, I'll just say that those who believe in God (whichever God they may worship) feel it is more important to maintain a good standing with God rather than attack the innocent. However, remove the innocent barrier, and the views of most change to being completely justified in first strikes.

While predators intimidate the weak, the well organized and well prepared (mentally, physically, etc) view them as vulnerable and targets of opportunity. To be a predator and go into other areas to strike, you must expose yourself to more risk. When it comes to fighting a person/people like that, I have no qualms with shooting them in the back, setting sadistic traps, etc.

mdsn969
02-27-2012, 05:32
Spectacular, but words are wind.



Its fine to say something like that. Its a whole different ball game to look into your 6 yr olds eyes and realize he's going to die if you don't find some food.



Deep down, humans are animals. Pushed hard enough, long enough, or with the right trigger and they will revert.

You can claim otherwise, but history's shown repeatedly that its true.

So you take food from another family and their 6yo dies???

Unacceptable answer...

Predators are a different animal all together, in a shtf situation they will try to take from you and they are fair game...

Raiden
02-27-2012, 05:59
Long gun has the right answer.

Humans are animals, but they are social animals. Society is how they have survived. Cooperation will continue. Predators will be quickly subdued or despatched by those who work together. That is the way it has been, and the way it will be.
Predators can work together, hunt in packs, and regularly become the law of the land (at least until the next biggest military junta comes in). History and current events are filled with seemingly-endless examples, and plenty of mass graves are filled with the remains of the righteous and fair. Kim Jong-Il died of natural causes, surrounded by bottles of Hennessy. :shakehead: It's a bitter pill, but shouldn't be ignored.

Not every predator out there is gonna be Liberty Valance, Cicero Grimes, Biff Tannen, or Gunkid either... There's the types who'll become your friend, just to stab you in the back (figuratively or literally). There are the kinds who - instead of pointing a gun at you - point a bible at you and prey upon your conscience. There will be those poor sods who prey upon your sympathies. There will be charismatic natural-politicians who come in and promise you something, and may even delivery some promises, but are ultimately looking out just themselves. And, you can't discount that there really will be some monsters out there who do end up defying the reaper. Folks should be careful not to oversimplify their threats... Not every villain is going to be that obvious, uncoordinated, or unsophisticated.

AK_Stick
02-27-2012, 08:57
So you take food from another family and their 6yo dies???

Unacceptable answer...

Predators are a different animal all together, in a shtf situation they will try to take from you and they are fair game...



Survival of the fittest has been well documented/accepted in almost every walk of life on this planet. Trying to argue otherwise, is silly.

LongGun1
02-27-2012, 08:59
It starts with taking what you think you need from someone weaker than you.

And ends like this...
http://www.thinkhero.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/the-road-movie-05.jpg


I for one. Fear my God, and will be an example for Him to my children until the end.


I vividly remember that scene...

..the overwhelming fear of a father trying to protect his son against cannibalistic predators!


When I think of that scene in a more personal context

..I see it as a societal problem needing to be solved!


Terms like enfilade & defilade come to mind..

.."working the crowd" silently from back to front! :whistling:

The rear most predator to the far right collapsing without being noticed by the larger group..

..then the one directly in front of him..

..then far left rear..

..then the one walking carrying the rifle to the drivers side of the truck.

I want them to be surprised that several on their flank have met a sudden & silent demise!

I want those remaining to take a defensive position against the attack "obviously" coming from their flank..

..then taking out the driver..

..& picking those off trying to attempt a counter flanking maneuver in the wrong direction that is not even a threat.

Then those predators with long range weapons clueless to where the (silent suppressed subsonic) shots are coming from..

..then the rest...sparing none!


Police the ammo & arms for those in need..

..dispose of any evidence...except for heads on stakes..

..and plan for the next encounter! :wavey:

wjv
02-27-2012, 09:32
I'd do it without hesitation. I hate people, in general, and if it'll keep my family alive, then I really don't think that I'd have a problem with it.

:upeyes:

Wow. . .Maybe you should buy an island and live there then.

Sorry. . But I have NEVER understood this mentality. One that many here seem to have.

I can understand hating SPECIFIC people. I can understand that during certain situations you might want to be cautious around other people. But this general "I hate everyone else" attitude just blows me away.

But since your talking about stealing food at gunpoint. . Don't be surprised if the rest of the world hates you back. .

lawman800
02-27-2012, 13:08
Spectacular, but words are wind.

Its fine to say something like that. Its a whole different ball game to look into your 6 yr olds eyes and realize he's going to die if you don't find some food.

Deep down, humans are animals. Pushed hard enough, long enough, or with the right trigger and they will revert.

You can claim otherwise, but history's shown repeatedly that its true.

Quoted for the truth, see my post #79 for the same thing.

Humans are animals and we become predators like anything else when the chips are down. There is no difference.

Those who say otherwise are just fooling themselves into thinking we are something different because we are capable of complex speech and thought.

G29Reload
02-27-2012, 14:17
If it comes down to it, others ARE food.

Nope. Not doin the cannibalism thing. Draw the line at that.

racerford
02-27-2012, 14:31
........Deep down, humans are animals. Pushed hard enough, long enough, or with the right trigger and they will revert.

You can claim otherwise, but history's shown repeatedly that its true.

History is full of millions of examples people who have died of starvation without them ever resorting to the things you suggest. They die of starvation without killing their neighbor for food, they die without eating their neighbor that died of starvation.

So a man that has a child that is on the verge of starvation is going to have the energy, stamina, strength to take on those that have sufficent food. If that is the case, he ate while his children starved. He should kill himself and have his children eat his remains, they will be better off. Someone is more likely to help orphaned children than an evil man that is too useless to provide for his children and his children.

Anywhere there are people with sufficient food there will be pests, plants and insects that can be eaten. It is not a question of doing what you have to do to survive. It is being too lazy or ignorant to provide food for your family when it is available. It is letting the evil in your heart over power you.

I will not have to kill the innocent to survive, it is clear to me that enough ignorant, lazy predators will volunteer to feed them, as plant food and animal fodder.

kalifornia
02-27-2012, 14:34
So then some here are preparing to murder, rape and pillage and others here are preparing to deal with murderers, rapist and pillagers. Is that about right?

racerford
02-27-2012, 14:39
So then some here are preparing to murder, rape and pillage and others here are preparing to deal with murderers, rapist and pillagers. Is that about right?

I did not see the rape part, but perhaps the admitted potential future murders were too embarassed to admit that:whistling:

nightwolf1974
02-27-2012, 18:22
I personally think this thread is one of the best discusions I've read here. It really makes you think.

Warp
02-27-2012, 18:38
Nope. Not doin the cannibalism thing. Draw the line at that.

People think that, and people say that, and then they undergo changes, physically and mentally and psychologically, when starvation begins.

G30Mike
02-27-2012, 18:59
If it comes down to my son starving to death, I would have to say I would do whatever it takes to keep him alive. Id hate to have to do anything like kill an innocent person to do so, but if that's what it means then so be it. If it means I have to shoot myself and for him to cook me up, well that's that I guess.

I would take every step I could before it came down to seeking out another person to kill and pillage from. Id hunt what I could and forage what I could before it came to that.

I'm not Mr. Commando, so those who would still be alive are obviously better prepped than me so will probably win anyway, and if I'm killed in the process of trying to feed my boy, well then he's really screwed if I'm dead.

jdavionic
02-27-2012, 19:07
People think that, and people say that, and then they undergo changes, physically and mentally and psychologically, when starvation begins.

http://files.myopera.com/Nomieghirl/albums/1400881/CANNIBAL%20PIC(FUNNY)BLACK.jpg

RMTactical
02-27-2012, 19:47
People think that, and people say that, and then they undergo changes, physically and mentally and psychologically, when starvation begins.

True, nobody knows what they are truly capable of. However, there are many cases of people choosing to starve to death rather than eat another person.

Bolster
02-27-2012, 20:20
I always laugh when I see comments like this.American's can't work togeather now when things are good, you think people are going to band togeather, and forget all their upbringing and the way they've acted for dozens of years before the event?

Getting back into this thread late. What AK was laughing at (:rofl:) is my comment that coalitions will quickly form after a major event, and eliminate "lone wolf" threats, such as single individuals stealing food.

So, yes, I am saying that coalitions of humans will work together when things are bad, where they wouldn't be inclined to work together when things are good. This is a well-known psychological / sociological effect, observed thousands of times throughout history and in the laboratory (some of the testing in this area done on military members). Put pressure on people, and they start forming coalitions...they don't splinter into lone wolves, they look for comfort and power in numbers.

Humans are a combination of individualistic and social impulses. Governments are forever trying to find a balance between these two that works (and modern governments tend to decay, over time, into over-reliance on social solutions, as that's a human impulse under duress). Most socialistic governments are erected under times of stress, panic, and privation. It's the coalition impulse, the herd mentality.

So that's why I think that coalitions would quickly form to take out whatever the group considers to be "unethical." It's empirical, it's how humans have behaved thousands of years previous. Ergo, shooting people to take their food is NOT a good survival strategy. A coalition would quickly take you out.

Want to survive? Be a ranking man in a coalition. That's why I encourage people to make some social connections now, instead of waiting until the S hits.

LongGun1
02-27-2012, 20:56
Best to use your time preparing for unexpected future events..

..than plotting to steal from your fellow man...or worse! :shocked:


One prepares for a better future....one does not!



Another way to contemplate doing anything to survive...

Your life on this earth is finite...your soul immortal!


Everyone on this forum will take their last breath at some point in the future..

..then you just might find this life just to be a test!

And don't expect a retake! :wavey:

Warp
02-27-2012, 21:32
Getting back into this thread late. What AK was laughing at (:rofl:) is my comment that coalitions will quickly form after a major event, and eliminate "lone wolf" threats, such as single individuals stealing food.

So, yes, I am saying that coalitions of humans will work together when things are bad, where they wouldn't be inclined to work together when things are good. This is a well-known psychological / sociological effect, observed thousands of times throughout history and in the laboratory (some of the testing in this area done on military members). Put pressure on people, and they start forming coalitions...they don't splinter into lone wolves, they look for comfort and power in numbers.

Humans are a combination of individualistic and social impulses. Governments are forever trying to find a balance between these two that works (and modern governments tend to decay, over time, into over-reliance on social solutions, as that's a human impulse under duress). Most socialistic governments are erected under times of stress, panic, and privation. It's the coalition impulse, the herd mentality.

So that's why I think that coalitions would quickly form to take out whatever the group considers to be "unethical." It's empirical, it's how humans have behaved thousands of years previous. Ergo, shooting people to take their food is NOT a good survival strategy. A coalition would quickly take you out.

Want to survive? Be a ranking man in a coalition. That's why I encourage people to make some social connections now, instead of waiting until the S hits.

:goodpost:

mdsn969
02-27-2012, 23:31
So then some here are preparing to murder, rape and pillage and others here are preparing to deal with murderers, rapist and pillagers. Is that about right?

Sounds about right to me...

Javelin
02-27-2012, 23:56
Only a scumbag harms the innocent.

:agree:


But also consider how many scumbags there are.... it's a terrible idea.

Airhasz
02-28-2012, 00:13
I get a kick out of watching that Preppers show on Natgeo channel....they spend all that time you could be enjoying this short life being paranoid and worrying about everything that is most likely NOT GOING TO HAPPEN....if it does hit the fan I for one do not want to be part of it so my only prep is my Glock and some proven ammo to check out of the HELL HOLE THE WORLD HAS THEN BECOME!:rofl:

Raiden
02-28-2012, 00:31
So that's why I think that coalitions would quickly form to take out whatever the group considers to be "unethical." It's empirical, it's how humans have behaved thousands of years previous. Ergo, shooting people to take their food is NOT a good survival strategy. A coalition would quickly take you out.

I don't think that's much concession to the victims of the thousands of military juntas, guerrilla factions, criminal families, and gangs who rewrote the definition of "ethics" with violence.

Too many folks seem to be banking on the biggest threat being lone wolf survivors, haplessly waging a solo war against a community. I've lived in gang-ridden neighborhoods, so I know - first hand - morally bankrupt opportunists know how to work together... Often, quite effectively.

Edit - Hah, I forgot I had already posted in the thread. Sorry for repeating myself, folks!

G30Mike
02-28-2012, 00:35
I get a kick out of watching that Preppers show on Natgeo channel....they spend all that time you could be enjoying this short life being paranoid and worrying about everything that is most likely NOT GOING TO HAPPEN....if it does hit the fan I for one do not want to be part of it so my only prep is my Glock and some proven ammo to check out of the HELL HOLE THE WORLD HAS THEN BECOME!:rofl:

I guess you would call this a non-survival stategy....
I choose to go out fighting, but to each his own.

Airhasz
02-28-2012, 01:09
Yeah, you're right....I got artificial hip that won't do much and other disabilitys...in my younger years I'd of been right there with ya!

SK2344
02-28-2012, 01:20
I know that there will be a point in time when my life will come to an end and if I ever feel that I have to rob or kill someone for food, then my life will end at that moment in time.

pugman
02-28-2012, 10:52
No.

I would look for the people who would...save those remaining sheep from the wolves and willingly accept any rewards.

If things have gotten The Road bad where animals are no longer able to be hunted, fish no longer fished, and any remaining food supplies are lucky to be found.....you don't have that much longer to live anyway.

And if there is a God...better to go out on his good side than preying on the weak.

Bolster
02-28-2012, 11:38
Too many folks seem to be banking on the biggest threat being lone wolf survivors, haplessly waging a solo war against a community. I've lived in gang-ridden neighborhoods, so I know - first hand - morally bankrupt opportunists know how to work together... Often, quite effectively.[/I]

I take your point...you're saying that groups don't necessarily "go ethical," that they can be madly unethical.

I'd argue that you're using a narrow definition of 'ethical,' ie, what YOU consider to be ethical. Groups evolve their own ethics. It's very possible for a group to maim, murder, and kill, while sticking closely to THEIR OWN ethical code, which may be: no killing of ingroup members, share the spoils, survival of our group above all others, etc. Nazis were highly ethical to their own code: social darwinism, honor, loyalty, socialism, hierarchy. "Ethics" is not any one particular code, but some form of ethics do evolve in any group that hangs together...even though they might be unrecognizable as 'ethics' to you and me.

And likewise, something that may not seem like an infraction to you or me (perhaps arguing with the leader) might be a massive, punish-by-death ethical violation to some other group.

There is no single ethical code, although there's some overlap among codes. The continual tribal warfare between left and right in this country can be neatly explained as a disagreement over what is actually ethical.

Regards your point that there will be warring tribes: Exactly...that's what I'm saying, too. The conflict won't be between lone wolf vs tribe (lone wolves will be wiped out in short order), it will be tribe vs tribe. So the advice is the same: Get your "tribe" started now, make contacts with like-minded others; don't be the lone wolf when trouble hits.

Kieller
02-28-2012, 12:27
Here I had a big long response and then I read LG1's first post and he hit the nail on the head.

Ethics are not part of you, they define you. Definitions can change with trials and tribulations but the strength of a person is measured by how well they hold fast to their ethics.

For some folks that isn't too hard, they have no ethics. For others, it will be the challenge of their lives.

Everyone is human and we all make mistakes. But willingly killing others for something you want/need is not right according to MY ethics. YEMV. (your ethics may vary)

Triple7
02-28-2012, 12:45
My kids starve to death or I take your food......I wouldn't even think twice about it.

wjv
02-28-2012, 12:52
Best to use your time preparing for unexpected future events..

..than plotting to steal from your fellow man...or worse! :shocked:

THIS!!!

A bit surprising how many people on a PREPAREDNESS forum are talking about "taking" instead of "preparing"

Buy your rice, spam and H2O now, and you won't have to worry about having to steal from others later.

kirgi08
02-28-2012, 13:01
My kids starve to death or I take your food......I wouldn't even think twice about it.

So youse would rather do the above than prep so you won't havta.'08. :dunno:

:upeyes:

RMTactical
02-28-2012, 13:07
My kids starve to death or I take your food......I wouldn't even think twice about it.

Much good you do your kids when you are dead because you decided to steal from someone who was prepared... Wouldnt you be better off trying to stay alive so you can help them find some way to eat?

Bolster
02-28-2012, 13:45
My kids starve to death or I take your food......I wouldn't even think twice about it.

That's not stated accurately, because you're comparing kids vs food. What you're really saying is:

"My kids starve to death, or your kids starve to death...I wouldn't even think twice about it."

That's a more accurate statement of your intent and moral perspective. Not to mention, a survival plan doomed to failure.

quake
02-28-2012, 14:05
Much good you do your kids when you are dead because you decided to steal from someone who was prepared...
That's part of my consternation/annoyance with the "of course I'd kill your children" crowd.

They acknowledge that by very definition, those they say they'd attack and steal from are better prepared than they (otherwise there'd be nothing worth stealing).

Yet while acknowledging it, they also simultaneously seem to ignore it; completely discounting the possibility that those people who are better prepared than they are, are actually "better prepared" than they are.

There's time and opportunity to make simple, cheap, easy preparations now. And if (not when, but simply "if") the shtf in a big way, those opportunities (prepping or attacking either one) would in that time be less simple, less cheap, and less easy. So the choice is:

A - do something simple, easy and cheap now, or
B - don't, but rather "plan" to somehow be the one victor in their version of the Thunderdome colosseum of post-shtf wannabe gladiators.

My goal - and plan - is simply to have me and mine able to avoid that colosseum as much as possible; same goal and plan as most here.

Look at it another way. If everyone simply had that same goal & plan and took basic preps seriously, there'd BE no colosseum and no gladiators in a post-shtf situation like a Katrina, would there...

But that requires adult responsibility, rather than video-game fantasy.

Bren
02-28-2012, 14:09
Before you answer:

At some point, everything runs out. Your stored food has been eaten - whether it was a week, a month, a year...you could run out. Your "sustainable" food isn't sustainable; bad weather, contamination, over hunting/growing, migration, disease, etc. It becomes unsustainable at some point?

Would you?

I thought you meant now...like just because I want it or something.

But the good thing about a post-apocalyptic world is that you don't really have to kill them after you take the food, because there are no police to turn you in to...unlike now.

Also, if it's not the end of the world, then the quality of the food matters a lot more. I mean, I have cash, so I wouldn't rob somebody of Chicken McNuggets...but some BBQ from Famous Dave's? Different story. Post-apocalypse? You might have to shoot a whole family for a squirrel (people who don't eat squirrels would not have survived to that point, anyhow).

I'm still thinking about the "kids or starve" posts above...are they fat kids? Tasty looking?

John Rambo
02-28-2012, 14:13
Before you answer:

At some point, everything runs out. Your stored food has been eaten - whether it was a week, a month, a year...you could run out. Your "sustainable" food isn't sustainable; bad weather, contamination, over hunting/growing, migration, disease, etc. It becomes unsustainable at some point?

Would you?

I was thinking about this as I reflected on some relatives little fresh garden plot in the middle of Seattle. I'm sure they feel it's a great supply in case something goes wrong. I'm also sure there are some far less friendly people that will gladly remove them of the goods when the time comes.

And then it struck me - for the unprepared, it will come in 3-7 days. For the minor preppers, a couple weeks or months. And for the rest, no matter what you do, it can happen. And at some point, likely would.

I know we all frown up and loathe the concept of banditry. But when it is you/your kids or someone else's - would you / could you use force to survive when it all runs out?


Absolutely not.


They'd be dead before I got close enough to take anything.

RMTactical
02-28-2012, 16:29
Absolutely not.


They'd be dead before I got close enough to take anything.

You really are Rambo aren't you? Well, the bad one anyways...

mdsn969
02-28-2012, 17:33
My kids starve to death or I take your food......I wouldn't even think twice about it.

The moral bankruptcy of many site members is appalling. :shocked: This thread is certainly eye opening...

runcible68
02-28-2012, 17:46
This is why I think it's supremely important for people in these situations to band together and form a community. You run out of food? Well maybe you can guard a guys farm with your arsenal of weaponry I know half you guys will have. Barter, trade what you've got, get info on how to gather your own food in the wild from folks, form a community garden, whatever.

By engaging in banditry you'll become persona non-grata with fellow survivors who've come together. You could be shot or people will refuse to have anything to do with you - making your chances of survival even slimmer. You cannot do it alone. And a "Rambo" attitude just means you'll die faster.

That said, I'll never say I'm above stealing in case my child was starving, but I'd hope I wouldn't resort to violent means to do so. (Maybe engage in some cat burglary.) I hope I'll have faith in my fellow man and that he/she will help me.

Survival is more than just staying alive. You have to have a life worth surviving for.

Javelin
02-28-2012, 18:01
The moral bankruptcy of many site members is appalling. :shocked: This thread is certainly eye opening...

:rofl:

You think I stock the finest firearms and ammunition for some kind of invasion or Zombie swarm?

Hell no! I stock them deep because of all the loonies on this forum that seem to think they are going to kill me and take my sandwich. Sometimes I wonder if I should be offering advice to get the Colt 6920 when these guys are all interested in DPMS and S&WMP15's... might be better off telling everyone to get crappy guns and I keep my Noveske's.

:rofl: :rofl:

mdsn969
02-28-2012, 18:22
:rofl:

You think I stock the finest firearms and ammunition for some kind of invasion or Zombie swarm?

Hell no! I stock them deep because of all the loonies on this forum that seem to think they are going to kill me and take my sandwich. Sometimes I wonder if I should be offering advice to get the Colt 6920 when these guys are all interested in DPMS and S&WMP15's... might be better off telling everyone to get crappy guns and I keep my Noveske's.

:rofl: :rofl:

hahahahah so true...

dudel
02-28-2012, 20:28
My kids starve to death or I take your food......I wouldn't even think twice about it.

You'd better have more than the two G17s in your sig before you try that! :supergrin:

jdavionic
02-28-2012, 20:32
That's it...I'm heading off to Huffington's forum. At least I haven't been threatened to be eaten.

AK_Stick
02-28-2012, 20:48
History is full of millions of examples people who have died of starvation without them ever resorting to the things you suggest. They die of starvation without killing their neighbor for food, they die without eating their neighbor that died of starvation.

So a man that has a child that is on the verge of starvation is going to have the energy, stamina, strength to take on those that have sufficent food. If that is the case, he ate while his children starved. He should kill himself and have his children eat his remains, they will be better off. Someone is more likely to help orphaned children than an evil man that is too useless to provide for his children and his children.

Anywhere there are people with sufficient food there will be pests, plants and insects that can be eaten. It is not a question of doing what you have to do to survive. It is being too lazy or ignorant to provide food for your family when it is available. It is letting the evil in your heart over power you.

I will not have to kill the innocent to survive, it is clear to me that enough ignorant, lazy predators will volunteer to feed them, as plant food and animal fodder.

:rofl:

Well, thats nice and all, but history doesn't agree.

alexanderg23
02-28-2012, 20:56
I watch something about people stuck on a boat in the ice. After they starved for weeks, after their body had eaten all the fat and protein, it shut down parts of the brain to save energy. The parts it shut down 1st control stuff like emotions and your morals and all. They had basically reptile brains so eating each other really didn't feel that wrong, it's not that they got that hunger, it was just that that moral compass part of their brain had been turned off.

Mr Spock
02-28-2012, 21:24
I watch something about people stuck on a boat in the ice. After they starved for weeks, after their body had eaten all the fat and protein, it shut down parts of the brain to save energy. The parts it shut down 1st control stuff like emotions and your morals and all. They had basically reptile brains so eating each other really didn't feel that wrong, it's not that they got that hunger, it was just that that moral compass part of their brain had been turned off.

You think that is a coincidence that those are the parts that go first? Back when food was hard to catch, I imagine the people for whom this occurred were more likely to survive hard times no matter what. When it comes down to it, our bodies do NOT want to starve... This is the instinctual response I was referring to.

I, like many, believe that taking from someone in that situation is wrong (I would try to join them, carry my weight, and earn my share of their spoils... If I met with hostility or force when trying to make this overture, then the scenario changes and I can't get into that many variables), but I also believe that many, myself included, may have a hard time figuring out what is morally right and wrong when delirious with starvation. The goal is to never get to that point.

My answer to the OP's question: I would do as above and try to form a coalition or partnership, rather than take. Unless I stumbled across someone who was going around and taking from others and killing them. That individual would be fair game, and I wouldn't mind relieving his corpse of useful items.

Aceman
02-28-2012, 21:32
You know an interesting observation? There are a bunch of posts suggesting that this is not an issue because that's why we prep.

Is it just me, or am I seeing some posts that are kind of in denial, or avoiding the issue, suggesting that it wouldn't come to that, or that aren't addressing the issue?

RMTactical
02-28-2012, 23:01
You know an interesting observation? There are a bunch of posts suggesting that this is not an issue because that's why we prep.

Is it just me, or am I seeing some posts that are kind of in denial, or avoiding the issue, suggesting that it wouldn't come to that, or that aren't addressing the issue?

I don't really see it as an issue for me personally.

For one thing, I dont believe we will ever see a complete and total breakdown of society as we know it for prolonged periods of time. I know some here do, but I just don't.

Secondly, I believe there will be safety in and amongst my group of church members. We all prep far more than the avg person, and history has kind of taught us to be self sufficient and band together during tough times. This will be a big safety net for me and my family, as it will be for those in our congregation...

I am sure that if a Mad Max scenario broke out, many of the scenarios we have discussed would take place, and unfortunately, most people dont have a "group" of preppers that have their backs. However, they will still be at an advantage over the murderers who plan on stealing and killing in order to survive...

racerford
02-28-2012, 23:15
:rofl:

Well, thats nice and all, but history doesn't agree.

The depth f the history that agrees with me gets deeper evryday, all over the 3rd world. There have been precious few wars fought over food. They have been fought over fortune. The well fed almost always are the vitors in war, what do think seiges are about? Generally speaking, starving people are poor fighters as compared to the well fed.

Am I foolish enough to think the starving won't steal to survive? Of course many will. But there is a far step between killing people to eat and pilfering food from them when they are not looking.

Will non-starving groups try to steal by force from those that have supplies? Yes, but not all will.

History is full of tens of millions of people that died of starvation without even trying to killing others to keep from starving. It is going on today.

Someone mentioned gangs and their actions today, and that it would get worse without law enforcement consequences. I think it will become very different. Good, law abiding people do not respond becuase they fear the conswequences of the law for revenge. Without the consequences, and the law keeping arms out their hands, I think the results would be different.

Today, if some raped your daughter and you knew who it was and saw them on the street, you would likely seek out the police to have them arrested. In a time without fear of the law, you might just make them dead right there or wait until they are alone and take care of justice. No need to fear forsenic sciences sending you to jail and leaving your daughter to fend for herself.

Please show us the mass examples of the starving in Africa and Asia killing their neighbors for their food, or killing them as food so that their own children might not starve. It is just not happening today.

John Rambo
02-28-2012, 23:21
This is why I think it's supremely important for people in these situations to band together and form a community. You run out of food? Well maybe you can guard a guys farm with your arsenal of weaponry I know half you guys will have. Barter, trade what you've got, get info on how to gather your own food in the wild from folks, form a community garden, whatever.

By engaging in banditry you'll become persona non-grata with fellow survivors who've come together. You could be shot or people will refuse to have anything to do with you - making your chances of survival even slimmer. You cannot do it alone. And a "Rambo" attitude just means you'll die faster.

That said, I'll never say I'm above stealing in case my child was starving, but I'd hope I wouldn't resort to violent means to do so. (Maybe engage in some cat burglary.) I hope I'll have faith in my fellow man and that he/she will help me.

Survival is more than just staying alive. You have to have a life worth surviving for.

Yeah, I don't know about you, but I plan on texting all of my friends daily to let them know who's a bandit when civilization falls.


:rofl:



Heres how that works. People walking by with supplies. You need supplies. People get shot. You take supplies and toss the bodies aside or move on with your newly found supplies.

And nobody ever knows what you did except you and the flying spaghetti monster in the sky. Find a settlement of people and hey, look at the newcomer with the surplus of supplies to trade us! Life is good! Hes our best friend! Nevermind that he just murdered some people for it - he don't tell, you don't ask.

RMTactical
02-28-2012, 23:24
Yeah, I don't know about you, but I plan on texting all of my friends daily to let them know who's a bandit when civilization falls.


:rofl:



Heres how that works. People walking by with supplies. You need supplies. People get shot. You take supplies and toss the bodies aside or move on with your newly found supplies.

And nobody ever knows what you did except you and the flying spaghetti monster in the sky. Find a settlement of people and hey, look at the newcomer with the surplus of supplies to trade us! Life is good! Hes our best friend! Nevermind that he just murdered some people for it - he don't tell, you don't ask.

Sounds like something that someone who thought they were Rambo would say... not really seated in reality though... :rofl:

John Rambo
02-28-2012, 23:28
Sounds like something that someone who thought they were Rambo would say... not really seated in reality though... :rofl:

I'm sorry, did you just bring up reality in the S/P forum on Glocktalk in a thread about whether or not you'd steal from people after society fell and you were starving to death? :rofl:

lawman800
02-28-2012, 23:31
For all the preppers who think their supplies would never run out because they are "adequately" prepped, how long does it take to run out and what are you going to do when it does run out? If the world ended, your supplies will eventually run out unless you really have a huge self-sufficient commune of sorts. That's no joke.

So let's talk about that instead of saying you will never never never because your preps will last forever and ever and ever. What if it does run out? What if something wipes it out like a flood or rats or whatever? What if a freak fire burns down your barn of supplies? Things happen. That is the discussion at hand.

AK_Stick
02-28-2012, 23:39
Please show us the mass examples of the starving in Africa and Asia killing their neighbors for their food, or killing them as food so that their own children might not starve. It is just not happening today.

Its happening all over the place in Africa all the time. Warlords take over the food through force, and kill other factions and take their supplies. If you're part of another group, your likely to get cut up, or shot up.

But I'm guessing you only know of Africa from what you've seen on TV. You can deny it, you can claim how you wouldn't resort to it, but at the end of the day, history proves that when the times get nasty, the primal side of humans come out. Its irrefutable, and indisputable. Anyone who claims otherwise, is either ill informed the history of humankind, or in denial.

Bolster
02-28-2012, 23:42
And nobody ever knows what you did except you and the flying spaghetti monster in the sky.

How does that part work? Rambo shows up with Homer's supplies, Homer and his clan are found dead, but nobody can figure out where Rambo's supplies came from? All that shooting attracts attention...so all the witnesses to the event gunned down too? This is all kept on the Q.T. how? Nobody in Rambo's clan gets drunk and brags about the event? Even in empty stretches of the Wild West, people were able to figure out who stole what from whom. Imagine trying to pull that off in today's world, either pre or post apocalypse.

I just don't think it's a realistic scenario. Seems more realistic that, if Rambo manages to wipe out Homer and his clan, and tries to trade Homer's supplies at the next outpost, chances are Rambo will be swingin' in the breeze before long. That's a common historical refrain.

I think Rambo is extremely optimistic about his chances of pulling off all this killing and looting undetected and unpunished.

lawman800
02-28-2012, 23:44
Its happening all over the place in Africa all the time. Warlords take over the food through force, and kill other factions and take their supplies. If you're part of another group, your likely to get cut up, or shot up.

But I'm guessing you only know of Africa from what you've seen on TV. You can deny it, you can claim how you wouldn't resort to it, but at the end of the day, history proves that when the times get nasty, the primal side of humans come out. Its irrefutable, and indisputable. Anyone who claims otherwise, is either ill informed the history of humankind, or in denial.

When the UN dropped food supplies off in Somalia, Mohammed Farrah Aidid had his henchmen gun down anyone who tried to get at it. He declared all food to be his. That is fact.

Besides, I saw it on "Blackhawk Down" so it must be true.:whistling:

runcible68
02-29-2012, 00:28
There have been precious few wars fought over food. They have been fought over fortune. The well fed almost always are the vitors in war, what do think seiges are about? Generally speaking, starving people are poor fighters as compared to the well fed.

Amen brother!

Personally, I think some of the "Rambo" posters here can't wait for civilization to end so they can indulge the darker sides of their personalities. Of course, there are evil realities about human nature, but some posters spend way too much time mulling over it. As Nietzsche once said, "Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."

Some people here are a few beers short of a six pack. I'm not worried about hordes of starving people if the SHTF. I'm worried about some of the guys on Glock Talk. Please steer clear of my house!

jdavionic
02-29-2012, 04:33
Someone brought up Africa as an example. Having a friend from one of the troubled nations there, I can tell you that humans are quite capable of some terrible acts when times get desperate. However predators can also become prey. A "good" man can quickly justify horrible acts against a "bad" man as well.

Point being and borrowing from an example cited earlier, don't be surprised if that seemingly easy target turns out to be trap and you end up with a bullet in the back, followed by your head on stake.

Dexters
02-29-2012, 04:58
. What if it does run out?
Fire
Flood
Earthquake
Tornado
Insects
Rats
Extra People
Spoilage
Etc.

John Rambo
02-29-2012, 08:20
I just don't think it's a realistic scenario. Seems more realistic that, if Rambo manages to wipe out Homer and his clan, and tries to trade Homer's supplies at the next outpost, chances are Rambo will be swingin' in the breeze before long. That's a common historical refrain.

I think Rambo is extremely optimistic about his chances of pulling off all this killing and looting undetected and unpunished.

I think bolster makes a very valid point here. There is certianly a risk. If I end up sniping Homer and then end up at Homer's camp with Homer's belongings looking to trade, I'd be a dead man. I've got nothing to say to that, really - if my luck turns out that bad, I'd get what I had coming to me.

How does that part work? Rambo shows up with Homer's supplies, Homer and his clan are found dead, but nobody can figure out where Rambo's supplies came from? All that shooting attracts attention...so all the witnesses to the event gunned down too?

"All that shooting?" You're assumming a gunfight would ensue, and that people would care. I can guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody is going to investigate every gunshot in a scenario like we're discussing. Now, a gunfight...scavengers might show up later to look, but I think Bolster is overestimating how curious people are going to be in a world where you're struggling to keep your heart beating, let alone enforcing law and order.


This is all kept on the Q.T. how? Nobody in Rambo's clan gets drunk and brags about the event? Even in empty stretches of the Wild West, people were able to figure out who stole what from whom. Imagine trying to pull that off in today's world, either pre or post apocalypse.

Bolster's description gives me a feeling that hes thinking about a "Book of Eli" sort of post apocalyptica. Rambo has more of a "The Road" setting in mind. To sum it up, I don't think mankind will be as organized and civilized as you do when resources become scarce and law and order falls apart.

Shoot 2 or 3 people in a group, take their goods, hide the bodies or dump in a river, and 50 miles down the road who's going to know? There won't be phones or emails or security cameras or town criers. There won't be anything but people trying to survive.

Triple7
02-29-2012, 09:30
You'd better have more than the two G17s in your sig before you try that! :supergrin:
That's just the Glocks......




And people read way to much into my one sentence. If my kids are starving I'm gonna do whatever it takes to feed them. If I have to lie, cheat and steal to get that done I will.
Now this is assuming ALL other food sources are gone. (including fishing and hunting.)
But since I have a ranch with 500 plus head of cattle to use....I think I could be ok for a while.

Bolster
02-29-2012, 09:35
This whole thread is an argument between teleologists and deontologists (if anyone cares to get philosophical).

Teleologists: the end justifies the means.
Deontologists: duty to the moral code.

This argument has been going on since Aristotle, or earlier.

Bren
02-29-2012, 10:11
Amen brother!

Personally, I think some of the "Rambo" posters here can't wait for civilization to end so they can indulge the darker sides of their personalities. Of course, there are evil realities about human nature, but some posters spend way too much time mulling over it. As Nietzsche once said, "Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."

Some people here are a few beers short of a six pack. I'm not worried about hordes of starving people if the SHTF. I'm worried about some of the guys on Glock Talk. Please steer clear of my house!

The people "a few beers short of a six pack," best I can tell, are the ones who take these things seriously and get into a hand-wringing tizzy over what's said on Glock Talk.

kalifornia
02-29-2012, 10:16
But since I have a ranch with 500 plus head of cattle to use....I think I could be ok for a while. Aren't Hamburgers Americas favorite treat? What size army would one of Americas last hamburger joints require? Are you hiring? I'll work for food

John Rambo
02-29-2012, 10:18
Aren't Hamburgers are Americas favorite treat? What size army would one of Americas last hamburger joints require? Are you hiring?

Farms would be seized by FEMA or other government troops prior to their fall. There is no 'might be' or 'could be' about it. The government will absolutely seize control of our food supply as it crumbles in a last ditch effort to "save" us(themselves).

Cletus and his grandpappy's shotgun and Earl and Wyatt from down the road with their Mini 14 and 30/30 won't be a match for a few squads of heavily armed soldiers.

Bolster
02-29-2012, 10:28
Farms would be seized by FEMA or other government troops prior to their fall. There is no 'might be' or 'could be' about it. The government will absolutely seize control of our food supply as it crumbles in a last ditch effort to "save" us(themselves).

Well John Rambo has that beer in the fridge, for sure. The population would simply demand the redistribution of food; politicians would do a quick calculation of where votes come from, and farms across the nation would suddenly be "nationalized" by the Food Security Force (another bureaucracy with automatic weapons).

kalifornia
02-29-2012, 10:38
I ain't scared Triple 7, I'll work for 3 hamburgers per day/ with condiments or 4 without. Let me know!

mdsn969
02-29-2012, 10:47
This whole thread is an argument between teleologists and deontologists (if anyone cares to get philosophical).

Teleologists: the end justifies the means.
Deontologists: duty to the moral code.

This argument has been going on since Aristotle, or earlier.

+1 :wavey:

Triple7
02-29-2012, 10:55
Y'all get to growing potatoes.....we will live fat until we die. lol

ZombieKing
02-29-2012, 11:30
Try to work with others. Groups have better survival rates. Grow food. Hunt food. Eat anything not human but edible. May reach the point of cannibalism.

If it gets worse then that? I'd like to say no but I'm a realist so yes....

As some others have said, true starvation will change you biologically and mentally. No one here is immune to how their body will make them act. All the willpower in the world will not override your body screaming for food. This has been shown and studied in people who've been in starvation mode. You can't escape human biology.

If you had asked the Donner Party people if they would ever resort to cannibalism they would have looked at you in horror and chased you out of whatever room you were in. In reality? They ate a whole lot of the other white meat.

We've seen cannibalism all over the world all the time. Right now it's in a low but it's still there.

And the same applies to attacking others for their supplies. Wars have always been fought over resources not fortune (to the guy up thread who said that). You might not attack and steal from your group but you sure as hell will attack that group over the hill.

Spectacular, but words are wind.

Its fine to say something like that. Its a whole different ball game to look into your 6 yr olds eyes and realize he's going to die if you don't find some food.

Deep down, humans are animals. Pushed hard enough, long enough, or with the right trigger and they will revert.

You can claim otherwise, but history's shown repeatedly that its true.

Yep.

All these people saying they wouldn't? They certainly would given the right pressure.

And for all those who talk about sacking liberals and Democrats.... what about all the conservatives who don't prep? Are they off the list? And how do you expect those people to have stuff for you to take in the first place?

Commander_Zero
02-29-2012, 11:51
Really, if you start shooting innocent strangers to replenish your food supply I would suspect that food won't be your biggest problem for you for very long.

quake
02-29-2012, 12:00
...Rambo has more of a "The Road" setting in mind...

Is there another poster called "Rambo" in the thread? Serious question; because if there is, I missed it.

Otherwise, we have Rambo calling Rambo "Rambo".

Quake thinks quake is intrigued.

Bolster
02-29-2012, 12:16
true starvation will change you biologically and mentally.

Yes, agree to that, but don't necessarily agree to what some of you think starvation will cause. Starvation tends to cause apathy, despair, listlessness -- not wild aggression and cannibalism.

For every survival case in which you see wild ever-man-for-himselfism, or cannibalism, you see many more cases of groups desperately pulling together, and a rigid code of "loyalty to the group" forming. Infractions, such as stealing extra rations, are generally punished severely by a strong coalition within the group.

I forget who said it in the thread, but it's true; the overwhelming number of examples of privation and survival are NOT stories of aggression and lone wolf-ism -- that's the Hollywood version. Aggression becomes an extremely expensive and risky proposition when all the hospitals and meds are are offline, and people will become increasingly risk AVERSE in a crisis ... not risk SEEKING...except for a few nut-cases, who've been yearning for anarchy, and will go wild--but they will be the first to die.

When aggression does occur (and it of course will), it will be when the aggressor thinks it's safe to do so, and has the advantage of numbers. Attacks will be against "out-groupers" and rival tribes. Even in the rare cases of cannibalism, such as the Andes survivors, there was something of a group consensus established before the living would eat the dead.

I blame the influence of too many television shows and movies warping people's ability to realistically envision a chaotic, post-catastrophe future. Study actual cases of survival, don't rely on Mad Max fantasies, and you'll learn that group norms become hugely influential in a crisis. You'll also learn that disciplined groups generally fare much better than lone wolves.

quake
02-29-2012, 12:19
..If you had asked the Donner Party people if they would ever resort to cannibalism they would have looked at you in horror and chased you out of whatever room you were in.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. But you ignore the fact that they didn't attack and kill folks. They were trapped and starving, and ate the only protein source available to them.

Another point of your own post is very relevant as well. While they took advantage of the (horrible) option they had, they didn't murder people, did they? They made a horrible personal decision that made them historically noteworthy (and ultimately kept them alive), but did it WITHOUT harming a living person in the process, didn't they...

The Donner party folks didn't kill people, even in their most dire situation; and as you say, would probably run you out of the room if you'd suggested it. Yet what we have here in this thread is people sitting in comfortable, climate-controlled rooms, with full bellies and full refrigerators at hand, saying that they would kill people.

By your own statement (which I agree with, btw) they'd probably have been appalled at the thought of killing folks for their food; because they DIDN'T kill folks over food. That in itself makes the Donner party people sound MORE moral than a lot of what we're encountering here.

Only scumbags harm the innocent, and even in their dire, life-threatening situation, even the Donner party didn't do so.

ZombieKing
02-29-2012, 12:20
For every survival case in which you see wild ever-man-for-himselfism, or cannibalism, you see many more cases of groups desperately pulling together, and a rigid code of "loyalty to the group" forming. Infractions, such as stealing extra rations, are generally punished severely by a strong coalition.

And that group will resort to attacking others. As other groups will also do the same.

I'm not saying people don't form groups. Clearly they do. But when everything is do it or die those groups will do it in order to not die.

Bolster
02-29-2012, 12:34
The Donner party folks didn't kill people, even in their most dire situation; and as you say, would probably run you out of the room if you'd suggested it. Yet what we have here in this thread is people sitting in comfortable, climate-controlled rooms, with full bellies and full refrigerators at hand, saying that they would kill people.

Thank you!! Clarity at last.

All this talk of wild aggression and eating each others' flesh is just so much internet chest beating.

John Rambo
02-29-2012, 13:04
Is there another poster called "Rambo" in the thread? Serious question; because if there is, I missed it.

Otherwise, we have Rambo calling Rambo "Rambo".

Quake thinks quake is intrigued.

Quake obviously doesn't yet realize that Rambo and Bolster's conversation was taking place in third person.

quake
02-29-2012, 14:01
Quake obviously doesn't yet realize that Rambo and Bolster's conversation was taking place in third person.
Quake can read.

Rambo and Bolster's conversation here was not in the third person. Bolster never referred to himself as Bolster, never referred to anyone called Bolster, and never even used the word 'Bolster'.

Rambo did, so while Rambo was clearly referring to himself in the third person; he was not having a 'conversation' in the third person.

If Rambo intends to turn predator, I hope he spends the time and effort to develop tactical proficiency surpassing the level of here-demonstrated English proficiency.

(Then again, I actually kind of hope not...)

Bren
02-29-2012, 14:03
Thank you!! Clarity at last.

All this talk of wild aggression and eating each others' flesh is just so much internet chest beating.

You live in a world where people kill others to take an iPod or a pair of shoes, pretty regularly. I've seen people killed for an insult or a bottle of beer (1 bottle, but it was the last 1). Yet you doubt that people would be willing to kill for food in a post-apocalyptic world with no law.

The people out of touch with reality may be the ones who don't realize that the point of all those stories about the sheep and sheepdogs and wolves is that a lot of sheep don't realize the world is full of people who really don't think like them and who think their weakness makes them food.

I've spent my entire life around people who would kill you just because they don't like people who look like you or talk like you, if the risk of retribution by an organized government was removed. Those may not be the people on this forum, but don't fool yourself into thinking the overwhelmingly suburban nerd crowd that posts on internet forums represents the whole world.

ShotRePeter
02-29-2012, 14:23
"i'd kill you for a klondike bar"

John Rambo
02-29-2012, 15:13
Quake can read.

Rambo and Bolster's conversation here was not in the third person. Bolster never referred to himself as Bolster, never referred to anyone called Bolster, and never even used the word 'Bolster'.

Rambo did, so while Rambo was clearly referring to himself in the third person; he was not having a 'conversation' in the third person.

If Rambo intends to turn predator, I hope he spends the time and effort to develop tactical proficiency surpassing the level of here-demonstrated English proficiency.

(Then again, I actually kind of hope not...)

Quake can't read quite as well as he thinks he can.

If quake refers back to post 148, Quake will see Bolster was addressing Rambo while referring to Rambo in the 3rd person.

If quake's aim is anything like his reading comprehension, he will be a prime target for people like Rambo in post apocalyptica.

TN.Frank
02-29-2012, 15:18
So basically what some of ya'll are saying in a nut shell is:
"When the going gets tough the tough eat people." LOL.:supergrin:

"Humans, the OTHER white meat."

Sounds like the move "The Road".

Bolster
02-29-2012, 15:25
You live in a world where people kill others to take an iPod or a pair of shoes, ...yet you doubt that people would be willing to kill for food in a post-apocalyptic world with no law.

You responding to me? That's not what I said.

I've said there *will* be killing (that's obvious), but that most people will pull together in a tribe for group protection.

You imply it will be a "war of all against all." It won't be like that. Where there is competition and aggression, it will be largely group against group. There will be killing-- likely not as much as you're expecting-- and most of it won't be neighbor against neighbor.

You are making the common error of looking at extreme behavior, and thinking it's normative behavior. I'm talking about most people's behavior, not the nut-cases.

I'm going to start calling this extreme perspective that keeps cropping up in this thread, "bloodbathism." This wacky idea that humans will stop behaving as humans have behaved for aeons, and that each neighbor will suddenly fly at his neighbor's throat when they're hungry. That sort of behavior is extremely rare for humans, who are social animals.

Stop watching so much TV and playing so many first-person-shooter video games, you bloodbathists. Read some history or observe people's behavior in dire situations. Try some empiricism.

crazymoose
02-29-2012, 16:29
No one can really say, that they won't terrorize others for their own gain? BS.

Maybe people really don't know themselves well enough to say, "I would not".


Not BS at all. True starvation (not just being really hungry after 2-3 days without food) will alter your brain chemistry. Essentially, when you're in that situation, you won't be "you" anymore. It's like adrenaline and "fight or flight." You don't know what you're going to do until you've been there.

TN.Frank
02-29-2012, 16:38
Not BS at all. True starvation (not just being really hungry after 2-3 days without food) will alter your brain chemistry. Essentially, when you're in that situation, you won't be "you" anymore. It's like adrenaline and "fight or flight." You don't know what you're going to do until you've been there.

LOL, if I miss a meal during the day and my blood sugar gets low I get that "kill and eat" syndrome and that's just from one meal. I can only imagine how bad it'd be after a couple days.

themiller
02-29-2012, 16:50
LOL, if I miss a meal during the day and my blood sugar gets low I get that "kill and eat" syndrome and that's just from one meal. I can only imagine how bad it'd be after a couple days.

:supergrin:

quake
02-29-2012, 17:40
Sigh... I really should let it go...
Quake can't read quite as well as he thinks he can.

If quake refers back to post 148, Quake will see Bolster was addressing Rambo while referring to Rambo in the 3rd person...
True. Bolster mentioned you by name:
...Rambo shows up with Homer's supplies, Homer and his clan are found dead, but nobody can figure out where Rambo's supplies came from?...

To which you replied, referring to yourself in both the 1st and 3rd person in the same paragraph. :dunno: I confess I also did, as a point of context.

Thing is, somebody saying your name out loud does not constitute 'a conversation in the third person'. Bolster's also mentioned my name, but we've still never had a "conversation in the third person".

Fact is, your statement was incorrect.

But that's probably ok. "Rambo" was kind of known for unintelligible grunting anyway.



Regardless, back to my regular prepping channel now; so I don't have to center my emergency-preparedness plans around killing people for their food.

{In case I failed to mention it, only scumbags harm the innocent; and intentionally planning to harm the innocent is simply premeditated scumbag. :wavey: }

JDSTG58
02-29-2012, 18:38
.........

Aceman
02-29-2012, 18:46
This thread is better than Doomsday Preppers.

jdavionic
02-29-2012, 18:56
This thread is better than Doomsday Preppers.

Not true. It does not have that overweight hot chick from Houston.

Warp
02-29-2012, 18:59
You know an interesting observation? There are a bunch of posts suggesting that this is not an issue because that's why we prep.

Is it just me, or am I seeing some posts that are kind of in denial, or avoiding the issue, suggesting that it wouldn't come to that, or that aren't addressing the issue?

Well said.

cheapshot
02-29-2012, 19:42
Yes i would. Simple as that.

kalifornia
02-29-2012, 20:33
there are no preps in Hades so why go there?

tower59
02-29-2012, 21:15
"Live for nothing...or die for something."

Gentlemen, whether in the first or third person, Rambo is quite an accomplished poet. Let's all take a moment and reflect on what John Rambo has added to our language.

Carry on.
;)

LongGun1
02-29-2012, 21:39
The moral bankruptcy of many site members is appalling. :shocked: This thread is certainly eye opening...


Also consider this..

Look how many G/T members posting in this thread..

..that normally do not post in SPF! :whistling:


Could it be that a bunch of bored GT'ers that normally reside in the non-relevant forums like GNG...

.."Hey guys & gals.... the SPF'ers have started another thread about robbing & eating each other....let's go stir the pot!!" :upeyes:


My vote is yes! :wavey:

RMTactical
02-29-2012, 21:39
For all the preppers who think their supplies would never run out because they are "adequately" prepped, how long does it take to run out and what are you going to do when it does run out? If the world ended, your supplies will eventually run out unless you really have a huge self-sufficient commune of sorts. That's no joke.

So let's talk about that instead of saying you will never never never because your preps will last forever and ever and ever. What if it does run out? What if something wipes it out like a flood or rats or whatever? What if a freak fire burns down your barn of supplies? Things happen. That is the discussion at hand.

I am pretty sure that most "preppers" acknowledge there will have to be a rebuilding of sorts and that you will have to be self sufficient and produce your own food.

Prepping is not just about storing food, but also about creating renewable resources of food. Food storage, as I understand it, is just to get you through a relatively short period of time until you can regroup and "start again", not live out the rest of your life on 40+ years of food....

Snaps
02-29-2012, 22:24
Yes, however I'd prefer not too. Nobody is going to starve or let the ones they love starve if they can do anything about it

lawman800
02-29-2012, 22:53
What kind of wine goes with human meat?:whistling:

Airhasz
02-29-2012, 23:22
Just look at the Jewish inforced ghettos in Poland and the starvation imposed on them by Adolf Shltler and that over fed slob Hermann Göring. People starving there and in the concentration camps and not one single report of cannibalism and I have viewed and read thousands of hours of info on this suffering. So it is not true that people will naturally resort to the Donner Party's decision to eat the dead. There were bodies everywhere during this horrible struggle of prisoners during WWll in Europe. I guess I just dispelled that myth!:eat: The Donner Party were the exception not the rule...

racerford
02-29-2012, 23:33
Its happening all over the place in Africa all the time. Warlords take over the food through force, and kill other factions and take their supplies. If you're part of another group, your likely to get cut up, or shot up.

But I'm guessing you only know of Africa from what you've seen on TV. You can deny it, you can claim how you wouldn't resort to it, but at the end of the day, history proves that when the times get nasty, the primal side of humans come out. Its irrefutable, and indisputable. Anyone who claims otherwise, is either ill informed the history of humankind, or in denial.

Once again you go away from the idea presented in the thread. A father/family with kids seeing their children starving will go out an kill random people for their food.

Your example of a WARLORD capturing food and killing others to do it is not on point. That is a power play, not a case of an average starving father killing to feed his family. He is controlling the food for power and to get others to fight for him. He is controlling it for money, people will give up everything they own to eat. First the warlord is not likely starving, nor are his troops. Starving people make poor warriors. Why do you think that the US spends so much money making sure our troops are fed. Why do you think that armies go to great lengths to cut off the enemies food supply. A starving army will often surrender. Again that is why seiges worked.

Why are there so many starving people in Africa when they could easily machete their neighbor in the night and eat them? Or just wait until they die and eat them? Only half as many people should be starving because they ate their neighbors. It is just not happening with any regularity.

racerford
02-29-2012, 23:45
........

If you had asked the Donner Party people if they would ever resort to cannibalism they would have looked at you in horror and chased you out of whatever room you were in. In reality? They ate a whole lot of the other white meat.

We've seen cannibalism all over the world all the time. Right now it's in a low but it's still there.

And the same applies to attacking others for their supplies. Wars have always been fought over resources not fortune (to the guy up thread who said that). You might not attack and steal from your group but you sure as hell will attack that group over the hill.

........

Recent review of the Donner party event would suggest that the level of cannibalism was grossly overstated. The Andes soccer team event was not people killing others, but agreement about about eating the already dead.

Cannibalism has traditionally not been practiced as a source of food, but rather of power or knowledge. One ate certain parts to gain the power of the defeated or the knowledge of a dead relative. In other cases the eaten were not considered humans, but chattel because they were so different from themselves.


The French, English, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese that dominated and colonialized much of the world did not do so to get their food. They did it for riches. Alexander the great did not defeat much of the known world for food, but riches. However, again even if they did none of it was avearage STARVING fathers trying to feed their kids. It was powerful people trying to become more powerful.

mdsn969
03-01-2012, 00:27
This thread is better than Doomsday Preppers.

Yeah Doomsday Preppers blows, this thread is a hoot...

Triple7
03-01-2012, 00:39
Just look at the Jewish inforced ghettos in Poland and the starvation imposed on them by Adolf Shltler and that over fed slob Hermann Göring. People starving there and in the concentration camps and not one single report of cannibalism and I have viewed and read thousands of hours of info on this suffering. So it is not true that people will naturally resort to the Donner Party's decision to eat the dead. There were bodies everywhere during this horrible struggle of prisoners during WWll in Europe. I guess I just dispelled that myth!:eat: The Donner Party were the exception not the rule...

Well to the Jews that is a huge sin. For most it would be better to die than to commit that sin

mdsn969
03-01-2012, 01:07
You responding to me? That's not what I said.

I've said there *will* be killing (that's obvious), but that most people will pull together in a tribe for group protection.

You imply it will be a "war of all against all." It won't be like that. Where there is competition and aggression, it will be largely group against group. There will be killing-- likely not as much as you're expecting-- and most of it won't be neighbor against neighbor.

You are making the common error of looking at extreme behavior, and thinking it's normative behavior. I'm talking about most people's behavior, not the nut-cases.

I'm going to start calling this extreme perspective that keeps cropping up in this thread, "bloodbathism." This wacky idea that humans will stop behaving as humans have behaved for aeons, and that each neighbor will suddenly fly at his neighbor's throat when they're hungry. That sort of behavior is extremely rare for humans, who are social animals.

Stop watching so much TV and playing so many first-person-shooter video games, you bloodbathists. Read some history or observe people's behavior in dire situations. Try some empiricism.

Bolster,

Your analysis is spot on, keep up the great posts!!!

.45 Combat
03-01-2012, 01:25
No one can truely say how they would handle it until in that situation.

I believe, there would be people shooting both ways. Not a good thing, and to say this, some of you kind of me. To me, I feel communities should come together. No man, is his own fortress for very long.

lawman800
03-01-2012, 02:06
Cannibalism may or may not have happened in the ghetto but they did happen in the concentration camps. Situations were way more desperate and severe in the camps, as it would be in the scenarios we are talking about.

Nickotym
03-01-2012, 13:09
No...stealing is stealing, whether there's a cop on the corner or not.

I would take food off anyone that attempted to harm my family or me. I'd take everything of any value off them - shoes, socks, guns, knives, ammo, food, water, etc.


Jdavionic sums up my feelings really well. Just because the world goes to crap does not mean my morals should and I could not live with myself if I stole from good people. If someone chooses to try to harm me or mine, they are fair game. Just like a criminal trying to rob me. I would not take all their goods on a first offense, but leave them just enough to make it for 1-2 days.

If the same lowlifes come back after me, it's game on!!

Nickotym
03-01-2012, 13:14
While I don't consider myself a "prepper", my plan is to stock up on weaponry and ammunition. When I run out of food, I will seek out those with food stores and take it.

Just my plan though.

If you come after me for my food, you better be prepared to give your life, my survival and my family's survival comes above some stranger.

If you want to do work for me in exchange for food and I feel I can trust you, we could work out a deal.

kirgi08
03-01-2012, 13:42
The posts in this thread relates ta one thing.The 7 ps,youse try and break it,you'll be pushing up veggies during the next cycle.'08.

lawman800
03-01-2012, 14:05
Just like a criminal trying to rob me. I would not take all their goods on a first offense, but leave them just enough to make it for 1-2 days.

Leave them enough so they can get back to their crew or at least regroup and rest and then come back again to try to take my life?

Yeah, you come at me and try to take my life and my livelihood, it's done. I ain't giving nobody no second chances to kill me if they failed the first time.

fwm
03-01-2012, 14:44
I know we all frown up and loathe the concept of banditry. But when it is you/your kids or someone else's - would you / could you use force to survive when it all runs out?

If it comes to that, other people will become my families food!

Mr.Pliskin
03-01-2012, 16:17
If people get hungry enough I'm sure they'll kill and eat each other. After all, Les Stroud used to have a camera crew.....but we dont talk about that anymore.

jdavionic
03-01-2012, 17:40
If people get hungry enough I'm sure they'll kill and eat each other. After all, Les Stroud used to have a camera crew.....but we dont talk about that anymore.

Now that's funny :rofl:

dudel
03-01-2012, 17:59
That's just the Glocks......




And people read way to much into my one sentence. If my kids are starving I'm gonna do whatever it takes to feed them. If I have to lie, cheat and steal to get that done I will.
Now this is assuming ALL other food sources are gone. (including fishing and hunting.)
But since I have a ranch with 500 plus head of cattle to use....I think I could be ok for a while.

With 500 head of cattle, why would you have to resort to killing someone to feed your kids (and possibly killing their kids), when all you'd have to do is trade a cow or slaughter one yourself?

Aceman
03-01-2012, 18:02
perhaps 5000 unprepared people took his 500 cattle for themselves...

NecoDude
03-01-2012, 22:01
Reading with interest and thought I'd chime in here. I seriously hope those that say they'd go on the attack in the situation are just showing bravado. Katrina proved how quickly civilization can turn into animals so who knows. With that knowledge I do know that I will prepare as best I can and vigorously defend my family and what we have for survival.

MrGlock21
03-01-2012, 22:02
I find the whole concept to be morally and ethically stomach turning.

Now that I have that out of my system let me tell you a story. My wife was having a sharp pain near her left kidney last Tuesday. She had a doctors appointment set up for Wednesday morning. She woke me up at 3am in terrible pain and crying. We immediatley went to the ER of one of the nicest hospitals around. We sat there for 9 FREAKING HOURS before they gave her anything for the pain or even began tests. It was 12 hours door to door total.

I tell you this because after 9 hours of watching my wife suffer in pain I was dangerously close to kicking down the door and "convincing" a doctor to see her immediately. I can not imagine what my reaction would be to watching her starve.

I'm with you on the 'stomach turning part' as well as on the ER situation when my wife was is trouble in a similar way.

The question "Would you take food at gun point" is such a loaded question, and I can't really answer that. I'm praying that - whatever happens - I'll be guided by the Holy Spirit rather than the animalistic one.

AK_Stick
03-01-2012, 22:03
With 500 head of cattle, why would you have to resort to killing someone to feed your kids (and possibly killing their kids), when all you'd have to do is trade a cow or slaughter one yourself?



Pretty sure if you read his post, that wouldn't be the first choice he would go for.

Nickotym
03-01-2012, 22:47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickotym View Post
Just like a criminal trying to rob me. I would not take all their goods on a first offense, but leave them just enough to make it for 1-2 days.[endquote]
Leave them enough so they can get back to their crew or at least regroup and rest and then come back again to try to take my life?

Yeah, you come at me and try to take my life and my livelihood, it's done. I ain't giving nobody no second chances to kill me if they failed the first time.

leaving them enough food for 1-2 days would only be done if they have kids they are supporting. A Lone wolf maurader is given no 2nd chance.

AK_Stick
03-01-2012, 22:56
how are you planning on telling if they've got kids? You think they're going to bring them with you?


Or do you think they're above lying about having kids to get you to show some mercy?

Cavalry Doc
03-02-2012, 07:33
Better to plan on where to dispose of the bodies of those that try to rob people of their food.

Animals that try that sort of crap rate just below whale excrement on my list.

Bren
03-02-2012, 08:29
Better to plan on where to dispose of the bodies of those that try to rob people of their food.

Animals that try that sort of crap rate just below whale excrement on my list.

Maybe, but if it comes down to those who are prepared to kill for food vs. those who post here that they can't believe people would do that, then clearly the "good guys" are not at all likely to win.

That's what I find silly about this whole thread - the idea that the bad guys are wimps and suburban dad will triumph.:upeyes:

Cavalry Doc
03-02-2012, 08:54
Maybe, but if it comes down to those who are prepared to kill for food vs. those who post here that they can't believe people would do that, then clearly the "good guys" are not at all likely to win.

That's what I find silly about this whole thread - the idea that the bad guys are wimps and suburban dad will triumph.:upeyes:

I learned long ago that youth and vigor can be overcome by old age and treachery. Anyone that is a soft target is going to have trouble. Stealth, physical security, use of terrain and distance, overwatching and intersecting fields of fire and a willingness to be just a little meaner than the other guy are all things to be considered.

Being lethal is not the only thing one should plan on. Plan on keeping what you have, or will have, over the vigorous objections of others.

The miscreants that are planning on stealing from others when stuff hits the fan? The world will be better off without them, just make sure that's how it ends.

Nickotym
03-02-2012, 09:14
how are you planning on telling if they've got kids? You think they're going to bring them with you?


Or do you think they're above lying about having kids to get you to show some mercy?
You got a point, but a parent can tell another parent from someone without kids.

These mental exercises are good. They help one think through the possibilities. I hope they never become more than a mental exercise in my lifetime, but nevertheless they are useful.

lawman800
03-02-2012, 09:21
You got a point, but a parent can tell another parent from someone without kids.

These mental exercises are good. They help one think through the possibilities. I hope they never become more than a mental exercise in my lifetime, but nevertheless they are useful.

No, you really can't. Some people just don't act like a parent or vice versa. Some people with pets act like they are literally children. There is no real way to tell, especially in a SHTF world where documentation is all but gone.

quake
03-02-2012, 09:35
...if it comes down to those who are prepared to kill for food vs. those who post here that they can't believe people would do that, then clearly the "good guys" are not at all likely to win...
True enough; the good guys don't always win. There's also not just the two options that are most-stated here - "might happen" and "couldn't happen" - there's a third option, that of "might happen, but not by me".

Whether it's killing to put food on the table, or robbing to put a roof over head, there are plenty of historical examples of people doing so, and plenty of historical examples of people refraining from so. Some would, some wouldn't, and some that believe they would or wouldn't, would end up surprising themselves (good or bad) when actually faced with it.

All we can do individually is make our own good decisions and good preparations, and allow for the possibility of having to deal with the fallout from other people's poor decisions and poor preparations.

racerford
03-02-2012, 10:29
Maybe, but if it comes down to those who are prepared to kill for food vs. those who post here that they can't believe people would do that, then clearly the "good guys" are not at all likely to win.

That's what I find silly about this whole thread - the idea that the bad guys are wimps and suburban dad will triumph.:upeyes:

It's not that people don't believe some people will kill for food, of course they will. It was the contention that "all" or just anyone one would. That the average dad with starving kids would do it. That when people said they personally would never do it, that they were told they could not know what they would do if the time comes. That they did not know themselves.

There will always be people who are pre-disposed to do evil. There does not need to be a SHTF scenario for them to do violence against the innocent.

Fortunately, I live in a state when the good guys can already properly deal with bad people would would kill them to take their stuff within the law. No need for a lawless scenario. Those bad guys will expose themselves withing a few days to weeks.

i would never presume bad guys are wimps. But bad guys presume at their peril that suburban dads are wimps. Actually, I hope they do presume the suburban dads are wimps. Everytime they do we have the chance that we will have less bad guys to deal with in the future. There are lots of bad guys with military and shooting skills, there are a lot more suburban dads that have miltary training and shooting skills.

Bolster
03-02-2012, 12:42
...then clearly the "good guys" are not at all likely to win. That's what I find silly about this whole thread - the idea that the bad guys are wimps and suburban dad will triumph.:upeyes:

It's a mistake to accept Bren's premise, that the opposite of being a suburban dad "good guy" -- I guess that's a lone-wolf "bad guy" -- gives a sustainable survival advantage. I can see it in an artificial, isolated case such as two guys on an island, but the advantage disappears when you factor in society...ie, other people, who will want to settle scores.

At best "bad-guy-ism" give a short term advantage once in awhile, but society's lone cheaters and scofflaws are dealt with, and harshly in a post-event world. No trial, just killed. (Socially networked bad guys is another story entirely, and have a better chance.)

If Bren's premise is correct...that the vicious, aggressive perps survive at the cost of the the suburban dads...then why hasn't evolution selected for vicious and aggressive people as the norm in our society (or other advanced societies, or virtually all societies for that matter)? But the norm is overwhelmingly "suburban dad" than it is "Scarface." How many hundreds of thousands of suburban dads exist for every Scarface? What's that ratio?

Sure, you get your outlier anti-social bad-men, in time hunted down and jailed or killed by coalitions of rivals or victims. Society isn't going to magically vanish. The desire for revenge isn't going to magically vanish. Consequences of behavior won't just evaporate due to a catastrophe.

Again, the model for human behavior here, seems to be based on way too much TV watching and video game playing, and way too little human psychology. Unprovoked "lone wolf" aggression is an unsustainable survival tactic, proven by aeons of human history. Any post-event lone aggressors will discover this in short order.

Think about it: morality actually is a survival tactic, of sorts.

Of course, this is the internet, and the proponents of "bad-man-ism" are probably all suburban dad wimps themselves.

PS: You could call most of the heroes of WWII "wimps," as they had no previous history of killing and aggression, and were not professional killers by trade. Some of you will be surprised how many "average, nonviolent" people will resist lone-wolf aggressors.

runcible68
03-02-2012, 13:13
What kind of wine goes with human meat?:whistling:

LOL. If you ended up munching on your neighbor, there's a good chance you'd end up with Kuru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)), a neurological disease similar to Mad Cow. Here's a vid of some cannibals in Papua New Guinea with the disease. Just like in the movie Book of Eli!

And sorry to the good ole boys who like squirrel brains (http://www.greysquirrel.net/brain.html). Not good for you either!

John Rambo
03-02-2012, 13:53
LOL. If you ended up munching on your neighbor, there's a good chance you'd end up with Kuru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29), a neurological disease similar to Mad Cow. Here's a vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8tmgpOiWRw) of some cannibals in Papua New Guinea with the disease. Just like in the movie Book of Eli!

And sorry to the good ole boys who like squirrel brains (http://www.greysquirrel.net/brain.html). Not good for you either!

I don't know if I'd say theres a 'good chance' you'd get Kuru. Especially if you aren't habitually eating people. Its possible, though. So is getting food poisoning.

Warp
03-02-2012, 14:30
I find the whole concept to be morally and ethically stomach turning.

Now that I have that out of my system let me tell you a story. My wife was having a sharp pain near her left kidney last Tuesday. She had a doctors appointment set up for Wednesday morning. She woke me up at 3am in terrible pain and crying. We immediatley went to the ER of one of the nicest hospitals around. We sat there for 9 FREAKING HOURS before they gave her anything for the pain or even began tests. It was 12 hours door to door total.

I tell you this because after 9 hours of watching my wife suffer in pain I was dangerously close to kicking down the door and "convincing" a doctor to see her immediately. I can not imagine what my reaction would be to watching her starve.

I don't think I'd make it that long.

runcible68
03-02-2012, 19:00
Well I'll never have a chance to get Kuru because I know I'll NEVER eat people. I don't care how hungry I get. There's a line I will not cross. If I die, then I die. And if people ever stooped to that level we might be shunning them - like in the Book of Eli! (Though those oldsters with all the guns were cool.) :)

Kuru is God's way of saying, "I wouldn't do that **** if I were you."

bdcochran
03-02-2012, 19:31
I re-read the original posting.

It poses a question that has been asked before in this and other forums.

Ok. My reflections.

1. The question posed does not affect my survival preparations.
2. My answer would affect the survival of others after shtf.
3. My answer would not affect anyone else's survival preparations.
4. The responses of others to the question now doesn't affect my decision when shtf.

It does give me pause to make some observations that may be of assistance to other people.
1. when a person misses 5 meals, he starts to become lethargic. If he misses a week or so of food, physically he won't be as much as a threat to you.
2. they range of motion; the range of action; the thought processes of a person weakened by hunger are greatly diminished.
3. you will make your own personal decision when the time comes - and it will be right for you, regardless of someone else's philosophy

Cavalry Doc
03-02-2012, 19:34
Just to cut to the chase. I really hope all of you prepare to eat and feed your families if SHTF. If you have to kill to eat, I hope it's quail, dove, feral hogs, deer, wild vegetables that lose their lives for your table fare. If you plan on threatening the lives of other humans, or actually plan on taking the lives of humans in order to live due to your lack of preparation now, I'll not mourn your loss if an honest person ends you for your brigand ways. I'll be rooting for the good guys. Brigands make darn good fertilizer for the garden. Best to plant them on the shallow side under the onions.

Gimp
03-02-2012, 19:57
I have no children, and am currently single. If it's just me, no I would not, with the possible exception of having just seen the people with the food commit murder to steal it themselves.

Put a wife and kids into the mix, and I do not know.

Put a wife and kids into the mix and all demands of "civilization" vanish out my tailgate (sorry) but I tend to take the Lestat Approach; if you must live as a predator, prey on the evil-doer. In the situation described above, I can imagine no lack of AlphaHotels in need of such treatment.

Mr Spock
03-02-2012, 22:00
It's a mistake to accept Bren's premise, that the opposite of being a suburban dad "good guy" -- I guess that's a lone-wolf "bad guy" -- gives a sustainable survival advantage. I can see it in an artificial, isolated case such as two guys on an island, but the advantage disappears when you factor in society...ie, other people, who will want to settle scores.

At best "bad-guy-ism" give a short term advantage once in awhile, but society's lone cheaters and scofflaws are dealt with, and harshly in a post-event world. No trial, just killed. (Socially networked bad guys is another story entirely, and have a better chance.)

If Bren's premise is correct...that the vicious, aggressive perps survive at the cost of the the suburban dads...then why hasn't evolution selected for vicious and aggressive people as the norm in our society (or other advanced societies, or virtually all societies for that matter)? But the norm is overwhelmingly "suburban dad" than it is "Scarface." How many hundreds of thousands of suburban dads exist for every Scarface? What's that ratio?

Sure, you get your outlier anti-social bad-men, in time hunted down and jailed or killed by coalitions of rivals or victims. Society isn't going to magically vanish. The desire for revenge isn't going to magically vanish. Consequences of behavior won't just evaporate due to a catastrophe.

Again, the model for human behavior here, seems to be based on way too much TV watching and video game playing, and way too little human psychology. Unprovoked "lone wolf" aggression is an unsustainable survival tactic, proven by aeons of human history. Any post-event lone aggressors will discover this in short order.

Think about it: morality actually is a survival tactic, of sorts.

Of course, this is the internet, and the proponents of "bad-man-ism" are probably all suburban dad wimps themselves.

PS: You could call most of the heroes of WWII "wimps," as they had no previous history of killing and aggression, and were not professional killers by trade. Some of you will be surprised how many "average, nonviolent" people will resist lone-wolf aggressors.

There is a difference between randomly displayed aggression or violence and clear-headed, calculated, brutal and efficient viciousness. The former is what is displayed by the lone wolf preying on those around him on a whim. The latter is what this suburban dad, and many like me, would display if the lone wolf posed even the slightest threat to the well-being of my family in that situation. If it comes down to me and him, he is killing me for my food. I am killing him for my family. There is a big difference.

Also, regardless of the training of the lone attacker... Given that I am in even a modestly fortified location, what is it that the rules of ground warfare say about the size of a force necessary to take a defensive fortification vs. the size of the force inside?

Suburban dads, given a proper Southern gentleman's mindset, may be the most dangerous people on the planet in the right circumstances BECAUSE they dads.

Warp
03-02-2012, 22:29
Well I'll never have a chance to get Kuru because I know I'll NEVER eat people. I don't care how hungry I get. There's a line I will not cross. If I die, then I die. And if people ever stooped to that level we might be shunning them - like in the Book of Eli! (Though those oldsters with all the guns were cool.) :)

Kuru is God's way of saying, "I wouldn't do that **** if I were you."

I looked it up to do more reading.

It does not seem that any of us posting in this thread could get it.

Bolster
03-03-2012, 00:08
If it comes down to me and him, he is killing me for my food. I am killing him for my family. There is a big difference.

I'm with you, and I like the argument, but to be fair, the "aggressor foragers" in this thread were aggressing on behalf of their starving children. So both sides of the debate have the moral cover of "for the children." In this hypothetical, someone's kids gonna die either way. Just sayin'.

I agree with you, I'm thinking the forager dad is dying before the defender dad is, all else being equal.

Just like criminals, foragers will be looking for the least resistance, and will prey on the weakest they can find. It's safest. Look out, Prius-driving AARP ladies. (No offense intended to any who may be reading.)

@Gimp: What's an AlphaHotel? Like a Motel 6 or...?

kirgi08
03-03-2012, 00:46
Folks,what is wrong with having 5+ years stored at multiple locales? We have more than that stored.'08. :dunno:

ignantmike
03-03-2012, 05:53
I find the whole concept to be morally and ethically stomach turning.

Now that I have that out of my system let me tell you a story. My wife was having a sharp pain near her left kidney last Tuesday. She had a doctors appointment set up for Wednesday morning. She woke me up at 3am in terrible pain and crying. We immediatley went to the ER of one of the nicest hospitals around. We sat there for 9 FREAKING HOURS before they gave her anything for the pain or even began tests. It was 12 hours door to door total.

I tell you this because after 9 hours of watching my wife suffer in pain I was dangerously close to kicking down the door and "convincing" a doctor to see her immediately. I can not imagine what my reaction would be to watching her starve.
i've been through this before.....you really hate to see a loved one in pain.....next time call ems to take her....she'll get a room right away.....if they don't come for a while....be a pain in the ***.....they will take care of you so you'll leave :supergrin:

JackMac
03-03-2012, 07:41
oh my!!! sit around and wait for FEMA....they are here to help! Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.

1smoothredneck
03-03-2012, 07:59
could i? Yes. I think anyone who says they couldn't is a liar.

Would i? That's what i don't know. I'd like to think that my reliance on god to fulfill my needs would not send me down that path. Instead of relying on one's self, the kind of situation you describe dictates a strong faith for survival.
this ^^^^

inzone
03-03-2012, 08:05
is there any research or group think on the timelines here? just curious....as in how long will the mass die off take and then approx how long will it take for the loose groups of predators to work their way out from the inner cities to the suburbs and then be forced to disperse into the hinterland? also wondering about small groups banding together and beginning to link up with other groups.... at some point in the survival curve I was thinking that the groups which can survive and stay in tact will begin to take out the predators/rogues...of course, they could go rogue themselves.....My God what a nightmare!

federali
03-03-2012, 10:18
While it's possible for a temporary disruption in organized civilization, I don't think the dog-eat-dog world we fear will materialize unless some catastrophic event were to engulf the entire planet such as an asteroid or comet strike.

I don't think I can kill someone for their food but I can certainly kill and eat the person coming for my food.

mdsn969
03-03-2012, 12:00
is there any research or group think on the timelines here? just curious....as in how long will the mass die off take and then approx how long will it take for the loose groups of predators to work their way out from the inner cities to the suburbs and then be forced to disperse into the hinterland? also wondering about small groups banding together and beginning to link up with other groups.... at some point in the survival curve I was thinking that the groups which can survive and stay in tact will begin to take out the predators/rogues...of course, they could go rogue themselves.....My God what a nightmare!

Kind of like the current episodes of The Walking Dead :supergrin:

lawman800
03-03-2012, 12:36
He ain't got the shakes, give him water...

Brian Lee
03-03-2012, 15:07
No, I would not, ever.

It's a matter of preferring to die with the values you truly believe in, and as the person you want to be, over the idea of becoming a criminal to survive.

Some might think I'm lying, but I think some people are not really all that committed to the moral values they claim to believe in. Many people only stick to their morals when it's easy.

Food-theft is merely one drop in the bucket full of lame excuses for turning criminal, and even while dying I'd never give up hope and faith in my ability to survive somehow, without leaving a trail of crime victims behind me.

Aceman
03-03-2012, 17:43
Just to cut to the chase. I really hope all of you prepare to eat and feed your families if SHTF. If you have to kill to eat, I hope it's quail, dove, feral hogs, deer, wild vegetables that lose their lives for your table fare. If you plan on threatening the lives of other humans, or actually plan on taking the lives of humans in order to live due to your lack of preparation now, I'll not mourn your loss if an honest person ends you for your brigand ways. I'll be rooting for the good guys. Brigands make darn good fertilizer for the garden. Best to plant them on the shallow side under the onions.

Doc - I do not disagree with that one bit. And if I went 'brigand' I have it coming.

But - my point is, no matter how much you prep, S happens. At some point, even the good guys can end up on the brigand side of the fence.

There is a meteor storm, your bug in location AND bug out location are struck. Then, a big rock hits the water and there are Tsunami/floods, you get to the high ground. A plague starts wiping out the wildlife. Would you do it?

My question does not allow you to hide behind "I'm prepping - I have 10 years of gear in six different locations." Scenario is "It's gone - your loved ones are starving."

I'd like to think I can find a way out, around, over or under it. But if I'm down to starve or use the last three rounds?

Of course, there is trade the gun for food...But i don't know that I would give up a weapon.

Brian Lee
03-03-2012, 21:11
[QUOTE=Aceman;18661901].......... At some point, even the good guys can end up on the brigand side of the fence./QUOTE]

I don't believe that's true of everyone.

I think lots of people throughout history have preferred to die while remaining true to the good side of things, rather than live by becoming a part of the bad side.

Cavalry Doc
03-03-2012, 21:46
Doc - I do not disagree with that one bit. And if I went 'brigand' I have it coming.

But - my point is, no matter how much you prep, S happens. At some point, even the good guys can end up on the brigand side of the fence.

There is a meteor storm, your bug in location AND bug out location are struck. Then, a big rock hits the water and there are Tsunami/floods, you get to the high ground. A plague starts wiping out the wildlife. Would you do it?

My question does not allow you to hide behind "I'm prepping - I have 10 years of gear in six different locations." Scenario is "It's gone - your loved ones are starving."

I'd like to think I can find a way out, around, over or under it. But if I'm down to starve or use the last three rounds?

Of course, there is trade the gun for food...But i don't know that I would give up a weapon.





Hard to imagine a scenario where only humans survive. Dove, pigeons, deer, fish, feral hogs, dogs and cats are ok to kill for food. Even in Texas, you can find plants to eat in nature.

If you know what you are doing in nature, there are a lot of options before you would need to threaten or kill other people for food. There will be a lot of people that will consider that route though. Those people will make good volunteer dog food and/or fertilizer if you plan ahead.

HAMMERHEAD
03-03-2012, 22:08
Would you take others food at gun point?

No. I'm going on 52 and have polycystic kidney disease.

My answer might be different if I were a young father/husband.

kirgi08
03-03-2012, 23:34
Doc - I do not disagree with that one bit. And if I went 'brigand' I have it coming.

But - my point is, no matter how much you prep, S happens. At some point, even the good guys can end up on the brigand side of the fence.

There is a meteor storm, your bug in location AND bug out location are struck. Then, a big rock hits the water and there are Tsunami/floods, you get to the high ground. A plague starts wiping out the wildlife. Would you do it?

My question does not allow you to hide behind "I'm prepping - I have 10 years of gear in six different locations." Scenario is "It's gone - your loved ones are starving."

I'd like to think I can find a way out, around, over or under it. But if I'm down to starve or use the last three rounds?

Of course, there is trade the gun for food...But i don't know that I would give up a weapon.

As ta your precis,it sorta fails.

We have more than you posted and in a variance of geographic areas.If a disruption of that magnitude happens this world is dead,not just my AO.'08.

federali
03-04-2012, 07:12
Having multiple locations or caches of food seems to make sense but then, in the post civilization world we envision, aren't we most vulnerable when we must leave our personal fortress? Might I not get sniped at merely for the gun I'm carrying? As good as we may think we are, how do we defend ourselves from the patient guy on the roof with a scope-sighted, center-fire deer rifle? Caliber doesn't matter as dead is dead. Also, if you are rural and have planted food plots, won't you need 24-hour armed guards to protect this food supply?

Much of the current advice, such as on the TV show "Doomsday Preppers" is that we should have a rural location to retreat to. I wonder; in a sparcely populated region, all residences might be methodically raided and searched by hungry thugs. In the suburban environment with tens of thousands of homes to choose from, there's a good chance that no one with hostile intentions will come calling. Besides, many of us can't afford second homes and unless you have the foresight to see it coming, you probably won't be able to get to your hideaway once the collapse is under way.

And here's another problem: what do you do if uniformed police and or volunteer firemen show up at your door stating that all foodstuffs are being confiscated as the municipality is forming a "centralized food distribution center" to "ease the suffering." Do you hand over your food or shoot them on the spot?

Fred Hansen
03-04-2012, 07:15
Would you take others food at gun point?Nope. Not a liberal bone in my body. I don't feel entitled to other peoples' stuff.

Aceman
03-04-2012, 10:50
As ta your precis,it sorta fails.

We have more than you posted and in a variance of geographic areas.If a disruption of that magnitude happens this world is dead,not just my AO.'08.

This is the example of "avoiding the question"

Don't care how much you have. It's gone or you can't get to it without another can of beans in your belly. Do you do it?

Do you REALLY believe it isn't possible for you to end up without?

lawman800
03-04-2012, 12:27
Nope. Not a liberal bone in my body. I don't feel entitled to other peoples' stuff.

Entitlement is not the question. It is not being entitled to it, but rather, would you do it if it meant the survival of yourself or your family. It would be pretty desperate times. Nobody is saying to do it at the first minute after a disaster, just go start looting and killing. This is assuming after a while, there is nothing left, like the Road. The world is dead. No vegetation, no food of any sort, nothing. Or your preps are wiped out and there are no alternatives. Would you?

This is the example of "avoiding the question"

Don't care how much you have. It's gone or you can't get to it without another can of beans in your belly. Do you do it?

Do you REALLY believe it isn't possible for you to end up without?

That's the problem here. Everyone keeps saying we got enough or we prep a lot or there are tons of natural resources. Well, nothing lasts forever. Answer the question. Even if it's a simple never, along with all the high-falutin' moralizing, it's better than denial.

beatcop
03-04-2012, 13:53
Civilization is a thin veneer. Millions scratch at its surface every year and go to jail, others get away with it, probably just comitting low level crime. The number of true "predators" would be unreal...the chance to act without accountability will be be so tempting that any "excuse" to act out their Mad Max fantasy will suffice.

Take a look at Africa...do they attack the others because of food? I don't know, it appears they call up some historical event to seek revenge for and then start whacking limbs off. Hutus, Tutsis to Serbs, Croats...man will kill for things less than "food".

We won't wake up one day with the Book of Eli, it would be a long slide....with a gradual de-evolution of society. If it went on long enough, the remaining folks would have to adapt. The question is how far is the bottom? We would be invaded by China before you had to worry about eating your neighbor.

What the hell was the question anyway?

Ultimately the majority of individuals would do what they had to do to feed themselves and their loved ones. When you have never observed hunger or killing, you will still believe in god, when it arrives at your doorstep and there's no hope...I think we will resort to being the animals we have hidden away with clothes, jobs, and religion.