Why you should leave the city.

[bigpaul]

Next time someone asks you why they should leave the city( in the event of a national crisis), you can quote them the following (taken from "The Urban Survival Guide"): 1. cities are a target rich environment for terrorists. 2.terrorists can blend more easily in a city than in a small town where everybody knows each other. 3.hazardous materials are shipped by rail and road through cities. 4.chemical plants and refineries are located in or near cities.5. GANGS. 6.international airports....easy spread of disease.7. bacterial and viral infections spread easily in highly populated areas.8. people are removed from their food and many dont know how to get food that dosent come from a store.9. a typical city has a 9 meal/3day food supply, at which time all the food is gone and it has to be resupplied from an outside source.10.people havent had to "prep"as a way of life.11. the density of prisons, criminals on probation, criminals on bail, former criminals and criminals released on "tagging".12. the entitlement mentality is more acceptable in urban areas(i deserve it!)13. overworked, underpaid, undertrained, understaffed police service.14. city hospitals are not staffed or equipped for disasters.

[Timelord]

Just don't tell the general pop. lol

[bigpaul]

(3 May 2012, 15:52)Timelord Wrote: Just don't tell the general pop. lol

the sheeple wouldnt believe you even if you told them TL!

[Tonka]

I’m always pleased to leave a city even on the calmest of days. And although, I quite agree with those reasons for escaping the city, I find it a little hard to get my head around peoples plans that at the first sign of trouble, the thing to do is to head out into the back of beyond, build a hut in the woods and live it up Neolithic style.
I understand why people want to practise the skills to be able to do that… it’s important stuff to know… but should it really be plan A?

Cities are also where the hospital equipment is kept, where the latest news on the situation can be obtained… where you are most likely to find people with particular skills you may need… and so on.

I am not suggesting that one should remain in a city, I just feel one should be near enough to civilisation to make use of the good bits if need be. Neolithic man had a life expectancy of 20 years... and they were probably better at living off the land than the better prepared prepper.

And yes… I do like to make counter points in order to get a discussion going…

[bigpaul]

3 things would stop me from ever living in a city again: germs, terrorists and gangs! give me the countryside everytime, i'd rather have a shorter life span and be happy, than live in a city and be afraid every day!

[Scythe13]

Some interesting points raised here.

With the initial post, I think it was Cody Lundel that wrote that book (off the top of my head). He's a great survival guy (big guy guy too! I wouldn't want to fight him!) but he's a perculiar exception to the general American style of survivalist. He's much more like us on this forum in that he learns the natural ways, but accepts that modern technology can play a part (space blankets etc).

My issue with his critique of living in a city:

3.hazardous materials are shipped by rail and road through cities.
But between their time in the cities, they're moving through rural areas. Even though they're moving at a lower frequency, you can't take that point soley as a good point. They probably spend more time travelling through a rural area than through a city (rural area will be larger than the city, so it's a logical point).

4.chemical plants and refineries are located in or near cities
Near cities.....as in.....rural. However, nuclear stations are in rural areas. Obviously you can go to places to avoid these plants though. But (and I might just be speaking for myself here) we live where we can afford to live in as good as setting as is viable.

13. overworked, underpaid, undertrained, understaffed police service
As oppossed to village police that hardly exist or have shared stations leading to response times long enough to deliver a baby.

14. city hospitals are not staffed or equipped for disasters
Situation where TSHTF (train wreck, dirty bomb, viral spread) the suggestion is that a city hospital is not equipped to deal with it. Does that assume that there are village/rural hospitals that are ready for such a virus, train wreck, radiation, etc?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rural living! I'm more for it. However, there are elements that can be taken out of context or pinpoined to enhance one side of an argument without recognising the other view of such things.

At the same time, I think that Tonka is right too that people planning of upping and offing to the woods at the first sniff of trouble are probably a little odd. It's a last resort, but one that would need most preparing for, as it is the one we are least adapted/skilled at doing. It's for this reason that my emphasis in prepping is for that possibility, because much of the rest can be learned along the way. But when you're up the creek and you don't have a paddle......that's when you need to know what you're doing, more than any other time.

[bigpaul]

i think there was an emphasis on cities because that is where most people live, therefore if something were to go wrong then it would impact on more people than if it happened in a rural area? the more people affected by an event then the worse that event becomes, perhaps leading to loss of life or at the very least hospitalisation. in a rural area an event could be classed as minor because it affects less people. a bit like the old saying" if a tree falls in the forest, if nobody is there, does it make any noise" or something to that effect!

[Scythe13]

(4 May 2012, 18:46)bigpaul Wrote: i think there was an emphasis on cities because that is where most people live, therefore if something were to go wrong then it would impact on more people than if it happened in a rural area? the more people affected by an event then the worse that event becomes, perhaps leading to loss of life or at the very least hospitalisation. in a rural area an event could be classed as minor because it affects less people. a bit like the old saying" if a tree falls in the forest, if nobody is there, does it make any noise" or something to that effect!

That's a very good point

[Tonka]

(4 May 2012, 08:51)bigpaul Wrote: 3 things would stop me from ever living in a city again: germs, terrorists and gangs! give me the countryside every time, I'd rather have a shorter life span and be happy, than live in a city and be afraid every day!

I can't say I've ever been too hassled by germs, terrorists or gangs in everyday life. ... well germs can be a niggle I suppose... and gangs were a bit of a concern when I was bouncer... and I was stopped and searched under the prevention of terrorism act... but anyway regardless of all that, just the fact that living in a city is abhorrent in most respects is enough to put me off living in one again. Even if that means having to ride in and out of one to work everyday. I never found cities frightening... just insufferably annoying.

[bigpaul]

i was never frightened living in a city...although i always "watched my back", but i think cities have changed in the 13 years since i left, my mates wife who lives in the neighbour hood i left, said " its not the same place you left Paul!"..... not that i want to go back!!!