Cities Are Dangerous To Your Survival Chances

Posted: May 17, 2012 in Survival
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

When it comes to dealing with survival scenarios cities are one of the most dangerous places to be.  Here’s why.

  • Cities rely heavily on food being transported in.  If the transportation of food stops then the food supply stops and panic ensues.
  • Riots and other societal disorders generally occur in cities.  Being caught in a riot is not only dangerous but can be life ending.
  • Power grid failure means everything in the cities stops working.  No drinking water, no lights, no heat.
  • Just try getting out of the city during a disaster.  Traffic jams will be everywhere.
  • Gun control restrictions for law abiding citizens are generally stricter in the cities which means legally defending yourself and your property becomes harder.
  • Looting on a massive scale is a phenomena that occurs in cities when disaster strikes.  Think dialing 911 will help, think again.  Looters will outnumber the police significantly and let’s face it, cops have families of their own to look after in a survival crisis.

Unless living in the city is an absolute necessity for you, consider moving to the suburbs or to a rural section of the country to increase your survival chances.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. […] Cities Are Dangerous To Your Survival Chances […]

  2. rmactsc says:

    Glad to see you agree with me Joe 🙂

  3. phoebe53 says:

    IMHO I believe you will have a window of 24 hrs to get out of the cities before the sheep wake up and realize what has happened. It will take another 48-72 hrs for the looters to have cleaned out everything useless and move outwards out of the city. The stores will be burned to the ground after everything has been taken and the cities will look like someone dropped an atomic bomb on them. Don’t believe me? Look back at the LA Riots after the Rodney King verdict.

  4. ohioprepper says:

    Given that urban areas are not suitable for any long-term survival, how far away is a good idea. Personally, and this is out there, would love to see risk assessment data for potential hazards and be able to build models to see how people would migrate to the outlying areas.
    Living too close and you could be in a hot zone, and too far away and you could deprive yourself of materials that aren’t/weren’t available, should it come to that.

    • rmactsc says:

      Thanks for commenting Ohio Prepper. Personally my thoughts are as far away from any city as you possibly can although in smaller states like mine where it only takes an hour to drive through the entire state, the distance away becomes relative to the overall size of the state. Risk assessment modeling is an excellent idea though.

    • phoebe53 says:

      Darn good question. I wouldn’t want to be living in the burbs where all the lovely houses are stacked almost on top of each other, it makes easy pickin’s on the way out and I think it’s harder to defend your area. Although, in some ways it might be easier if all your neighbors are like minded, you could set up a roadblock by felling trees. Some people suggest you make your home look like it’s already been looted but if all your neighbors don’t do the same I think the bad guys will see thru it.

      I don’t think there will be packs of hundreds wandering about, they will be in smaller groups that can be managed with a few of your neighbors with guns and plenty of ammo. They don’t want to die so they will move on if you can hold out long enough but they will remember where you are.

      Rural living will give you more options, more cover, you’ll be able to see them approaching better than in a cul de sac type setting. If you live in a rural area you should already be set up to bug in, don’t even think that materials or services will be available, be self sustaining.

  5. rmactsc says:

    Suburbs are better than cities and at least in my area of the suburbs the houses are reasonably well spaced out. For suburb living it’s best to live away from the main roads and live on backroads that are off the lines of drift when those fleeing the city reach the suburbs.

  6. phoebe53 says:

    Good point. They will be taking a direct route out of town for the most part but there will be stragglers on the outskirts. Of course we’re only talking about the ones that survive the first days as they will be killing each other off in droves.

  7. MJ says:

    A somewhat point by point rebuttal.

    Food’s trucked into the suburbs too.

    When power outages happen, cities get the power turned on more quickly than suburbs and outlying areas. I live in a city. My water comes to me via the force of gravity.

    High gas prices are going to effect you more in the suburbs than they will city dwellers. Ditto with snow and unplowed roads.

    I was in down town Seattle during the WTO riots. I was doing my Christmas shopping. Stores were open, everything was fine. You’re far more likely to die in a car smash in the burbs than from rioting in the cities.

    Wide scale rioting and looting are the exception, not the rule, after natural disasters. And looting happens in the ‘burbs.

    Suburban and rural areas have crime, social problems, and hunger too. Consider: a pot head or a drunk in the city can walk or ride transit to get places, in suburbs and rural areas he has to drive.

    As a matter of fact some cities are gentrifying and what were considered “city problems” have now left those cities for the suburbs.

    • rmactsc says:

      However, suburbs contain more farm land if you are growing your own food. Try concealing a privately run generator in the city during a disaster and not having it stolen. Every suburban dweller (in a home) should have at least 100 gallons of gasoline safely stored and treated for emergencies. Looting will always be worse in the cities, just look at riots in the past in LA, Detroit and New Orleans, nothing in the suburbs even comes close to that. City crime statistically in most areas is higher than suburban crime. Thanks for your comments MJ 🙂

    • phoebe53 says:

      Here’s a somewhat point by point rebuttal. You’re assuming that nothing major will happen and it will be a slight natural disaster, a glitch so to speak. You’re assuming that the lights will be back on in a matter of days, but what about an event that is large enough to take the power out indefinitely.

      Say we get hit with an EMP, caused by man or solar, no power for a long time, it takes power to gravity feed your clean city water to you, it takes power to supply the gas/diesel for buses and cabs to operate, it takes power to supply gas/diesel for goods to get into your city. Assuming that the gas is still running, why do you figure it will be harder on rural people than city people? The city transportation systems, whatever it may be, are going to up the price exponentially.

      No one is disputing that there is crime everywhere, it’s just much less in the rural areas. Since that pot head can easily move about the city that makes crime more accessible for him, I don’t get what you’re “driving” at.

  8. phoebe53 says:

    Obviously you’re quite comfortable living in the city, that’s your perspective and I respect that even if I do believe it’s a bit naive.

    It’s not a matter of places prepared, whole towns are not going to come together, no matter how small they are, it’s up to the individuals to prepare and survive for themselves.

    In a rural setting you can plant a garden, no matter what season, think greenhouses. You can install a hand pump on your well easily or use solar or a generator to supply power to run the electric pump. You have more options in a rural setting.

    The reason there was no looting during the tornado’s is because the National Guard was called out, after Katrina that has been the norm.

    “So, why worry about riots and why not worry about car wrecks, heart disease, and diabetes, which are way more likely to kill people?”

    I don’t worry about things I have no control over. Riots I can avoid.

    “You’re assuming that nothing major will happen and it will be a slight natural disaster, a glitch so to speak.”

    “Actually, I just thought this was poorly written nonsense.”

    You’re correct, it was poorly written and written in haste as I had to leave for a Dr. appt but preppers will know what I meant.

    There’s a big difference between a localized event that is short term and a catastrophic event that will be wide spread with no definite end.

  9. phoebe53 says:

    Okay, where did the comment I replied to go? It appears as if I’m talking to an invisible person and should be committed. That may not be that far fetched. lol

  10. phoebe53 says:

    The Gremlins are rioting again? Bring out the National Guard!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s