Greetings all.

N00B to the forum but I've been reading lots and trying to learn as much as I can. Great wealth of resources and experience here!

Anyway...

I was thinking about a possible, Katrina-like SHTF scenario and, as such, am researching shotguns for defense. Assuming we would have to become mobile, would you think it advantageous for people to see you are armed or would it be better to keep its presence as subdued as possible?

Would it be a deterrent if you were obviously armed or would this just tempt others into trying to take this resource?

Right now, I'm leaning towards playing my cards close to my vest. The plan is to shoulder-sling it but keep it inside a gym bag which will sling over the same shoulder. That way, the shotgun sling isn't as obvious and, to the casual eye, it just looks like I'm carrying an extra bag.

Just curious as to what your opinions may be on this.

Thank you.

I'll assume you're away from home, hiking or whatever. I've thought about this issue quite a bit. I prefer to analyze real world prior SHTF scenarios. In most recent SHTF scenarios near metropolitan areas (this is the "urban preparedness" room), I generally think it would be advisable to be discreet about any firearms you may be carrying.

In Katrina, the government decided to confiscate firearms. So, if you were carrying openly, you would have had the options of either turning over your firearm or getting into an armed stand off with the authorities. You lose either way. In massive fires in California, you should definitely carry discreetly, and deep concealment preferably (if legal). There are other examples as well.

A SHTF situation would not be the best time to make a statement about your right to carry openly. The authorities would generally freak out in most places, even if you're perfectly within your rights.

The idea here is to survive the situation and not have to turn over your self-defense tool. I think the best the way to go would be a handgun that you can conceal and keep on your person, in your control, at all times. It would be nice to carry around the fire power of a shotgun or rifle, but, again, we're talking about "urban preparedness". The long gun would bring you more troubles, rather than take away troubles.

By the way, I think there are better forums to discuss your firearm options during a SHTF scenario. I suggest you go to a gun-specific site. I'm sure there are quite a few people here who are not pro-gun. I'm pretty sure you don't want to get into a debate about gun control and the Second Amendment.

With respect, firearms arent specifically taboo-provided politics stay out of it, and it applies to the situation. There are several other firearms-related threads. As long as it stays as a mature discussion, I dont think it would be an issue.
Lets look at Katrina. My unit was deployed down there immediately after the flooding, to assist with rescue & recovery operations (national guard infantry unit). I was already out, but most of the unit going down there, I knew the soldiers quite well. The ROE down there was to disarm civilians-but, not forcibly. In other words, ask for thier weapons. If they refuse, distance yourself. They didnt confiscate any while they were down there. The only trouble they ever ran into were with other government agencies, who were also armed.
The lesson to take away from Katrina is, simply dont advertise. Not because you would be a potential victim of another person-but because, in all liklihood, some government agency will attempt to disarm you. And, you will never see your firearms again, most likely.
For travelling, I would suggest something a little more travel friendly-a pistol. LEGALLY carrying one, concealed, is a lot easier to hide and, if necessary, deploy, than a shotgun. Remember; if the need arises for you to need one, chances are someone already has one pointed at you. A weapon slung on your shoulder is largely useless in a self defense situation.

Several others have mentioned the benefits of a concealed handgun (Keeping it hide avoids drawing attention and gives you the element of surprise), however if that option isn't legally open to you there are a number of good shotgun choices that aren't impossible to conceal. If I remember correctly Mossberg (my prefered shotgun maker) makes a nice tactical 20gauge with an 18.5" barrel, pitol grip, and a large magazine. Obviously it doesn't have quite the power of a 12gauge, but it is easier to control.

As always though, practice practice practice! Work on your draw from whatever is hiding it (jacket, gym bag, violin case).

-Blast

I think the concept that you will *need* to walk around armed after a disaster begs the question, what do you fear or what adversaries will you face? If you already live in a marginal (defn: crime-ridden) neighborhood then yes, arming yourself when the police can no longer respond seems a prudent thing to do. But after most disasters, folks you see on the street are far more likely to help you than to attack you. Just sayin'.

For me, a far more likely scenario is a flood event, say the Green River Valley gets a historical flood, and we're sheltering 12,000 people from Auburn and Kent (which are strong Second Amendment cities - gun ownership is high). People who are flooded out don't want to leave their guns behind, so they will be coming out, in the public, and approaching our Red Cross shelters, possibly with guns. They will be openly carrying with or without a concealed carry permit, which is required in Washington state - so the cops will have to adjust their enforcement on that. They are carrying not for personal protection during the flood per se, they are carrying because like all flood refugees they have everything with them, and their guns are valuable and they don't want to lose them to the floodwaters. We can't have weapons in shelters, so I am an advocate for surrendering your weapons to the King County sheriff - take a claim check, and pick your weapon(s) up when you want them back. So far I don't think the sherriff's office has any contingency plan to hold weapons, so maybe this is moot - alot of folks then will have to leave their weapons with non-flooded friends, or keep them in cars etc, which cause a whole lot of theft issues.

Excluding some ancient ice-bear protection I don't own guns and don't plan to own any, but I have no problems with people that do. Personal choice that we should respect and all that. If someone wants to discuss the gun v.s. anti-gun issue there are tons of sites that are more appropriate.


I am all for preparing to avoid or cope with bad things happening (such as looting, theft and robbery). But there is a very fine line between being cautious and being paranoid. If you go around seriously believing that the worst will happen right now, right here and being in a perpetual "RED" state of alert is the only deterrent to keep them from happening then you're paranoid, not cautious. Don't underestimate the negative effects this will have on your ability to cope with the situation

- It will seriously impact your situation awareness. You may spot every potential misdemeanor in 5 mile radius, but you will miss lots of opportunities to improve your situation.

- It will cause you to behave like an aggressive bully on steroids, alienating everyone you meet.

- It will seriously impact your ability to de-escalate potential situations. Think about it: If all that is on your mind is looking for clues that you're entitled to draw and fire your weapon in 0.34 seconds then you won't have any capacity to de-escalate with words, humor and gestures.

- It will impact your personality in a very negative way. In short, if you think and act like a paranoid bully you will become that paranoid bully. Do you want to be a paranoid bully?


What I am trying to say is: If you ever find yourself in a bad SHTF situation (major hurricane or whatever), then you need all your strength and resources. Don't waste your mental and physical resources on being paranoid. You can prepare adequately against the worst of human nature without being paranoid, but I agree it is a delicate balance.


My personal goal is to strive towards an open mind and increasing situational awareness. You need to realize what is happening right here, right now - and then you choose the right set of tools from a wide range of options.



And a final note on the Katarina looting and violence: Sure, some of it happened, and it was gross and brutal. But then again, media reports blew those events way out of proportions. And a significant part of the most horrifying stories simply did not happen except in the minds of some government officials and journalists.


Don't forget the positive attitude that is also a part of what the human being displays in major catastrophes. Both in Katarina, Haiti and lots of other catastrophes, people went through great efforts to relieve their neighbors, strangers and friends alike, displaying the "we're in this together" attitude that is required for a community to regain its footing.

Really well put MostlyHarmless! I would add, if you go into a disaster expecting to be armed, but it ends up you can't be (your arsenal under the rubble, water etc etc), where are you then? You would be armed with your paranoia, and not much else.

Do expect folks around you to work together - sharing water, food, medical supplies, transport. I have seen that from strangers to strangers, I don't have any reason to expect anything else.

And if you do go out armed after a disaster, please remember, there will be folks - like me - who are unarmed, who won't let you go into a shelter, or transit their property, or enter their gated community, or enter their business, without surrendering your weapon, probably into the custody of the local sheriff's department, if they'll accept it - not because its part of some grand scheme to disarm Americans, but because there's no other practical solution to delivering services in a disaster. We have already decided for legal liability and practical reasons that an armed populace in certain places in a disaster context is a higher risk than an unarmed one, and the rules will be posted, and you'll have to obey, or move along. You will have to relax your paranoia at least for a little while, if you need a place to sleep or eat or get in the doors to get some intel on what's going down. Then again, in every disaster I'm familiar with, these places are okay for being unarmed, and in the case of shelters they have enough security to ensure no one is going to cause you harm while you're there.

The best CQB scene in the movies, lots of concealed carry of shotguns in this video clip,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBFrxbWTlzI

I reckon it even surpasses the Heat CQB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PJcUvbgwLM

Real life is somewhat different though, do you go for body Armour and a Fritz helmet and how will this restrict movement and cause overheating problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=950glfSyS-A

Was there something that happened in New Orleans (or anywhere else on the Gulf Coast) that says "shotgun" to you? I'm curious what went on there that gave any advantages to people having shotguns. Links to reports online would be appreciated.

Something to be considered is the legal ramifications of walking around in public with a loaded long gun. In most places (even without a martial law declaration) you are going to be running afoul of the law. This means that an otherwise chance, casual encounter with a rescuer/peacekeeper could go badly for you from (at least) a legal perspective.

You don't mention the area in which you reside but most states in the US allow for legal open or concealed carry of a handgun. I would much rather be legally armed with a handgun than illegally carrying a shotgun.

In a Katrina type situation like you propose I can think of very few reasons that I would want to leave my place of refuge if the surrounding environment is so hostile that the open carry of a long gun is necessary. Were something like this to happen in my local I know how I would proceed but my local laws may be dramatically different than yours.