#20525
Profile photo of Anselm
Anselm
Survivalist
member6

<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>libbylindy wrote:</div>I must agree with 74 on this one. “Things generally working out”, generally doesn’t. Even for someone very, very prepared, there is probably a greater chance that you will be at risk than be safe. Of course, if you are talking about a small, local incident, you may be right. However, for a major event that will put things in chaos for an extended period of time, everyone is at risk. The better prepared you are, the better; however, even then the crazies around you will be a threat. If it amounted to no one other than yourself, then there is a bigger chance of safety and survival. The chance to have no one around you will exist only is a very rural location. If I had to choose, I would choose fewer people around me.<br>
I have thought a lot about this subject and from what I read here, it appears the urbanites are most comfortable staying where they are, and the rural people are most comfortable in their situation. We always tend to go to the most familiar. Therefore, it is hard to come to a consensus here.

True enough, but note that the likely event is a local one, not national. The TEOTWAWKI most preppers seem hell-bent on is not a religious dogma. Usually, what we have is a flood or earthquake or hurricane in one relatively small area. Have you asked yourself why people insist on it being TEOTWAWKI? Statistically, and within your own life experience and mine, it is the least likely situation. So why prepare for the least likely?