Saturday, April 30, 2011

Rural Homes being Attacked

This thread was on my favorite SHTF forum, dude. Check out the number 3 comment; you called it in your book!
Click here: Please Stay Vigilant !!!!

The Thread post of reference:
Texas-Gun-Man said…
Quote Originally Posted by RoadWarrior
“Yes we had 3 houses robbed, all next door to eachother just 2 doors down. Luckily they broke the pattern and went somewhere else.”
I guess what worry’s me the most is that we live out of town 10 miles. I guess criminals are getting less lazy usually they’ll stay in town where it is easy pickens. That and the fact they came in on one of the homeowners and killed her. TGM
WOW!! That’s a rural area over there. I wouldn’t think of it happening there. Too far from an urban area.

That’s pretty unfortunate. I didn’t predict anything that wasn’t already happening in dangerous parts of the world, and has happened before. Just common sense actually.  Its only American survivalist folk to think that criminals are too stupid to get into a car and look for a nice profitable isolated target that can be picked clean without concerns of neighbors reporting it and authorities responding to the incident. As I said many times, the ubiquitous survival retreat half a gas tank away from town works very well when there’s NO real threat to worry about. Like that Simpsons episode, where Lisa ends up selling Homer a stone that repels lions. That stone works with great efficiency while on the streets of Springfield… :p

Argentine firearms author Alejandro Reynoso wrote about the different weaponry needed for home defense and in his experience while you may get away with one or two handguns in the city for home defense, in more isolated locations long arms are called for because the possibility of attacks that are more frontal and last more time are more likely. The isolation works in the attacker’s advantage, not yours.

Hope people realize these things and start preparing better instead on counting on distance to save their necks. It’s a terrible mistake and as things get worse, a mistake that will cost a growing number of people dearly.

If you live in an isolated area, where help won´t be coming your way if shots are fired and someone cries out for help, then you should have MORE security, not less.

  Join the forum discussion on this post


Unknown said...

Another consideration is that once long arms enter the picture, many American homes are just concealment instead of cover.

Don Williams said...

1) The American survivalists basically had their mindset created by a Stanford English major back in 1979, Ferfal --A guy named Mel Tappan:

2) Mel wrote some articles for Guns and Ammo magazine, collected into a book called "Tappan on Survival". It's available online here:

3) During the time of high inflation when Jimmy Carter was President, Mel strongly argued that one should move to a small self-sufficient farm at a great distance from any major city:

"Massive violence, rioting and looting would erupt -- at least in the cities. Food and other essentials would be exhausted in less than a week and arson would be the probable response to empty shelves. Firestorms would soon sweep every major city. Water and
sanitation would fail, disease would become rampant, and survivors would begin scouring
the countryside in search of food, shelter and valuables.

Small towns, especially rural small towns not too close to the cities, should fare much
better. The central government would probably fall and, depending upon the length of the
crisis period, communities might form into alliances resembling city states. Loss of life
would probably be very high and a long period of anarchy would probably exist before
successful attempts at rebuilding could be made"

4) All those guys polishing their guns lapped up that idea like yuppies gulping down cappuccinos at Starbucks.

5) Mel , of course, had no experience in the US military/ intelligence community, no knowledge of classified US government plans for "Continuity of Government" even in a major nuclear war, and no knowledge of the US government's capabilities.

6) But he was not totally wrong --unlike Argentina, every US city was targeted by several Soviet Nuclear warheads and could have been turned into a pile of ashes at any moment.

And Mel's idea of riots and cities burning seemed plausible because of the race riots and widespread arson during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. A lot of people followed Mel's advice --but just moved out to a half-acre lot 15 miles out in suburbia.

Some of the chaos of the time was a huge mass of baby boomer teenagers coming to maturity and rejecting the rule of a much smaller older generation.

7) And Mel was not a fool -- unlike his later acolytes, he thought isolated retreats were idiotic and strongly advised moving to a small town of 5000+ people that could provide multiple capabilities (medicine,etc) and fight off bandit gangs.

8) But how to earn a living? Mel didn't sweat that because he had married a wealthy heiress.

Mel died at age 47 from congestive heart failure caused by obesity caused by being bedridden for a long time after stepping on a broken glass in a swimming pool.

Roderigo said...

Reading this post reminded me of one of the most infamous examples of home invasion/mass homicide in modern history – and one that most Americans are all too familiar with: the attempted robbery and eventual murder of the entire Clutter family of Holcomb, Kansas by two paroled convicts as recounted in Truman Capote’s groundbreaking novel In Cold Blood.

Capote’s book almost single-handedly spawned the true-crime genre novel; and while most of us are already familiar with the details of this famous story it’s worth quickly recounting for the sake of this posting: two aimless convicts join up after their parole and decide to pull off the ‘perfect’ crime – one of the duo had been tipped off by a former cellmate that his previous employer - a wealthy farmer who lived in a very rural Kansas location - tended to always keep a large amount of money on hand. The two criminals drove hundreds of miles to their target, and upon entering the home and discovering the family had no money to speak of, proceeded to dispatch them without mercy. Those who want a more in-depth synopsis of this brutal crime can read about it here:

This crime is the classic example of how a living a anonymous and righteous life is simply not enough in and of itself to protect you from being randomly targeted by vicious criminals - and when an isolated living location is thrown into the mix, it can produce a deadly outcome for all.

I would strongly urge those who have not read the book In Cold Blood to do so, as I would consider it an essential survivalist read. And I would also highly recommend the incredible 1967 movie adaptation which happens to star Robert Blake as one of the killers, who as many know, was later acquitted of murdering his estranged wife in a famous Hollywood trial.

Pitt said...

While I am not a disciple of Tappan (I've never even seen his book) I do live in a rural area, however I have several neighbors within close proximity, however this does not mean that I expect them to come to my aid if my home is attacked. While my 9mm is always ready and usually on me, I know that I am in serious need of long gun redundancy. Police response is in the neighborhood of 30-45mins at my locale, so, I know I have to handle things myself.

Matt said...

It is intersting to note that in many parts of the world you will not find the lone isolated house. Centuries of conflict proved that people clustered together for common defense, even if not a walled village, survived longer. In most of the small foreign countries it is also normal for houses to have enclosed courtyards that one has to break into first before gaining entry into the house. Walls generally have glass or barb wire on top. Windows are barred or second floor and barbed only. Cement or Adobe construction seems to stop small caliber rounds pretty well too.

Don Williams said...

Re Pitt's comment "I know that I am in serious need of long gun redundancy. Police response is in the neighborhood of 30-45mins at my locale, so, I know I have to handle things myself"
1) You CAN'T handle things yourself. You can be hit at any time without warning by a sniper.
Or attacked at night.

2) I very much doubt things would ever get so bad in the USA that roving gangs could attack farmers the way they did in Rhodesia. But if conditions did reach that point, your only protection is a fortified town of some kind with roving , highly mobile armed patrols to protect the surrounding area. Look at history.

russell1200 said...


Tappan was influential, but as early as the 1950s in John Christopher's "No Blade of Grass" the elements that went into Tappans philosphy were already there.

Tappan's strategy works in some scenerios, and not very well in others. One thing I find amusing is that no matter where a fiction author sets there EOTWAWKI scenerio, they always seem to have everyone running away from where ever there at. Small town people run to the big towns, and the big town people head for the hills. Seems like you should have big car wreck in the middle. Or maybe they could just exchange keys at some mid-point so everyone would have a place to stay.

J. Croft said...

Linked your article here:


The author, who witnessed the deliberate demolition of Argentina's economy at the turn of the Millenium, is sent a reply off a survivalist board and the gist is the bad guys are not stupid. They know that an isolated house in the boonies is easier pickings than one house in a neighborhood where there are always eyes about and perhaps a finger on a trigger.

The point is, being in a isolated little group or alone does not work because those are easy pickings for even a poorly organized gang. If you are a lone survivalist-guess what, you have to sleep.

What does work is a self-sufficient, tight knit community-these are called towns. About all towns nowadays are run by one kind of freemasonic clique or another but as we still have something of a representative form of government the recall election and the pattern set by the GIs of Athens Tennessee in 1946 are the example to follow. Only, you keep going and clean up your neighboring towns, then the county, then the surrounding counties, then the states-THEN you can afford the fantasy of a Ron Paul actually getting things done... except he's a freemasonic ringer leading the movement around in circles and collecting all the cash being centrifically pulled out of all the suckers pockets.

Be your own leader. Work together. Take to the offensive. Save America and you save the World.

Future generations will thank you-they will NOT thank you for hiding in a cave or some other lame gulch as you let your country be stolen from you.

Don Williams said...

I should note that while fortified towns can stand off bandit gangs, they cannot resist government military forces.

Cities have far more power than rural towns -- as Stalin showed when he confiscated the harvests of the highly fertile Ukraine in the 1930s to feed Moscow and left MILLIONs of Ukranian farmers to starve to death. The

Don Williams said...

PS If you think the US Internal Revenue Service is any more merciful than Joe Stalin, then just try to not paying your tax bill.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't argue your point, Don, as it applies to the Ukrainian mass starvation and pogram of the 1930s. Funny you should mention it, as a New York Times reporter won the Pulitzer Prize for his propaganda disguised as reporting. Seems pretty relavant to our contemporary reporters. His love of Stalin and Communism clouded his judgment, I would suppose. It's happened to many others, some say they occupy the White House. Oh, well, I digress.

And no, I wouldn't want to have a retreat in the great corn and wheat growing areas of the US, and I don't think most people in the survival world have suggested that scenario. What I've seen most suggest is a small farm nestled among the mountains, protected by geography, in a low population area away from any large cities. Small towns and communities would be a plus, as trade and professional services will be a neccessity under any circumstance that I can envision.

I read Mel Tappan's book Survival Guns many years ago, and I can say that he changed my thinking on pistol play, as I had always been a wheelgun fan, an Elmer Keith guy if you will. Of course, I had no big problems changing to the .45 ACP, as the .44 magnum was my caliber of choice for many years. The .45 did seem a tad underpowered, but I did reload them pretty hot in those days to somewhat make up for the lack of power.

It has taken Ferfal to get me to buy a 9mm, a Glock 19. And I love it, although I still get a little nauseous when I see that tiny bullet. But there are a lot of them.

Anonymous said...

If one is waaay out in the middle of nowhere, and not in an agricultural region, at least one gas tank full away from a any large city, and can stay there for several years, the odds that you will be mostly left alone are much higher. Once the chaos is over with, yes, then one will likely have to move to the city for work. We have less than one million in our state and it is the 5th largest state in the union. Do you really think a gang would do well out here. The gang would first have to travel across many other large sparely populated states and have a destination to nowhere to make it here. And in the unlikely event they arrive, they will not be welcome. Yes, one can make it in the big city if the chaos is not so bad, but if becomes a war zone, your odds are no better there than anywhere else. Out here we will have a chance in a worst case scenario that others believe is impossible. And if it is not a worst case scenario, then we have the option of moving to a city.

Don Williams said...

Anon said: "If one is waaay out in the middle of nowhere, and not in an agricultural region, at least one gas tank full away from a any large city, and can stay there for several years, the odds that you will be mostly left alone are much higher."
1) Aside from an asteroid strike, the only event I can think of that would relax the grip of the US Government and the rule of Law enough to justify a rural retreat would be a major nuclear strike on the US by Russia.

2) But in that event, many of those big empty states in the American West would be cooking under several thousand rads of fallout radiation -- because of the ground strikes needed to take out the US missile fields in Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.
That includes Montana and eastern New Mexico.

(300 rad pretty much cooks your goose.)

3) I pointed this out to John Wesley Rawles back in 2006 when he was advising people (including paying clients, evidently) to move to Montana, Idaho, etc.

Doug From Oz said...

Yes but as Ferfal has said numerous times, the other problem with isolation is jobs, not just the crime risk. If you're that far away from everyone how do you make a living? Or even if you can, how do those around you? Not everything can be grown, (plus what has to be grown needs constant care, and the harvesting) and spare part stores eventually run out. And then there's the damaging effects of social isolation to consider.