To hide or not to hide?

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.

Last night watching Deadliest Warrior, Nazi v Viet Cong, the SS used a flame thrower. My wife saw that and said, "go get one of those for home protection when the world collapses."

Not very concealable but (lol) funny as hell. Btw I told her I know how to make napalm I could go whip some up in the garage real fast.

She said," ahh no". But my son said, "cool"

Thanks for the responses.

I am planning on buying a shotgun for home defense. In the event of a catastrophe, I also would not want to leave my shelter but if I had to leave (the structure catches fire, the area is deemed unsafe, floods etc.) I would want to bring it with me.

I live in NY so, unfortunately, handgun anything is out of the question for me. I'm really looking at this as a self-defense tool so I want something durable, reliable and economical (I actually am looking at Mossbergs).

Believe me, I'm not looking at a natural disaster as a chance to play urban cowboy. And I work in healthcare so my initial impulse is to be helpful. However, I also know that you just can't through to some people and I'd like to be able to defend my wife and I to the best of my ability.

I realize the odds of actually needing a weapon are slim but, again, I wouldn't want to leave it behind either if we had to bug out.

It hadn't even crossed my mind that they would make you "check your gun at the door". Thank you for making me aware of that.

It seems that if I want to keep my gun, it would be best if folks didn't even know it was there. Thanks!

I personally would try my best to avoid a massive government help facility, unless I must have medical help. This site is helping me for planning to be self-sufficient in a disaster so that I can avoid such facilities.

I know a massive disaster facility (e.g., Superdome Katrina) is set up to help people. However, their success depends on their available resources versus the number of people who need help. Plus, you may live in an area where nobody is accustomed to being self-sufficient. Thus, if it's a really bad disaster, you could enter a help facility only to experience hell on earth.

In regards to guns, I never like to voluntarily enter an area where I'm forced to hand over my gun(s), especially during a disaster or where law enforcement is nonexistent. I view a gun as a necessary item during a SHTF situation like Katrina or worse.

By the way, somebody above brought up the oil spill. While that is a SHTF situation, for people on land (not on oil rig), that example is obviously off base from the topic at hand, and this topic is worthy of serious consideration.

Also, I don't think this is the right topic or set of people for a lecture about being paranoid. The topic is SHTF. By definition, everything is abnormal. It seems like most people here have a healthy degree of paranoia, and there is nothing wrong with that. I won't be capable of listening to a lecture on paranoia if a tsunami takes out my house and family. I'm not sure if such a lecture has much use now. Guns are more valuable during a massive SHTF situation. As an actual example, a gun would have been valuable to Reginald Denny in the Rodney King riots. There are many other examples where regular people have had true needs for guns when the SHTF.

I concur with your sentiments regarding handing over my most forceful means of self-defense.

If I neede medical help, I'm glad I'm aware now of this stipulation whereas before, I honestly didn't give it any thought.

I thought handguns were legal to purchase anywhere but ny city? If possible, it seems having a friend or relative you can stay with outside the affected area would be a much better option for you than a shelter. Especially if you plan on traveling with a weapon, as I'm sure those would not be allowed in a public shelter. And I imagine the penalties could be quite severe if one were caught in violation of the no weapons policy. If you could purchase a handgun, a small .38special (with a proper holster of course) would probably be all you would need. Its about a simple and reliable as it gets and arguably easier to safely transport. You could even install a small, secured lock box in your vehicle.

Before this thread goes down the guns politics/arguments path and to a possible lock by the MOD's. I like to make a comment on your comment. I (and probably like most other here) come here not because we have a "healthy sense of paranoia" rather we want to be equipped to survive...which is a world of difference. And if you think that most here are paranoid, I take it you have not had the pleasure of reading any of the "survivalist" forums which this forum should never be mistaken for...

I'm actually about to start the paperwork for a pistol permit. But I definately am getting a shotgun for the home defense anyway. That's why I was wondering if I should bother keeping it under wraps while on the move.

I guess I was confused and was wondering if it was better to be a poison tree frog (brightly colored to let all around know you shouldn't be messed with)or a, uh... boar, keeping to himself until provoked and then using his tusks.

Ok. Terrible analogy but I hope you get what I mean.

I would go with Boar... Why use your SG when you dont have to? I would save my ammo and hide my gun. My opinion

Still, a 20 gauge pointed at you still looks like a train tunnel. It has the distinct potential of making someone's drawers considerably heavier and stinkier.

First, find a good school and get trained. I'm sure there is more than one in your area. Not only do you need to know your weapon inside and out, including failure drills, maintenance, and marksmanship, but to understand tactics and -- most importantly, especially in your state -- legal issues.

Second, find a really good hiding place for the gun. When the authorities come to take it from you, claim it's elsewhere. If it's legal to loan it to a relative, tell them you lent it to that legal relative, who happens to not live in your hometown.

Don't leave home with it.

If you leave home. Leave it hidden. And locked up. (Because nothing is EVER hidden enough. Any thief worth their salt already thought of anything you could.) And, to be safe, take a key component with you, so if it is stolen the so-and-so doesn't get anything useful.

If you leave home with it, you'll need to transport it legally. If it's visible, it will be confiscated by the authorities. If it's loaded and carried concealed on your person, not only is it useless for defense, but it's going to get you in jail in NY pretty fast.

Plan on investing many times the price of the shotgun in training and practice ammunition. If that's not in the budget and you don't have prior training, then skip it.

If you're going to get one with no training anyway, get a reliable auto like the Mossberg 930, because it's pretty easy to short stroke a pump under stress.

Carlos, I live in NYC and have both a handgun and a shotgun. Admittedly the permitting process for the handgun is much more of a pain to get through.

To ask handgun vs. shotgun is a bit like asking hammer vs. screwdriver, but having said that, if I could only have one firearm, it would definitely be a sidearm. Absent literally the WORST CASE scenarios, I dont think it is possible for you to walk around with a long gun publicly (and keeping a long gun in a big gym bag really takes it out of commission for tactical purposes).

Sidearms can be carried discreetly, and are tactically effective by skilled shooters to probably 25 yards. It is somewhat difficult to imagine a situation where you're defensively engaging targets past 25 yards.

Somebody mentioned getting firearms training, and I think that's clearly a good idea. Also, consider buying less-than-lethal tools like pepper spray (legal in NYC), which gives you more options than if you only had a handgun.

Gun safety course is def in the cards for me and missus. As are regular sorties to the range.

Just to clarify, I don't mean to carry it (or a handgun) around at the first power outage. They're for home defense. I brought up the question because I was wondering what I would do if we had to leave and had to take it with us.

Truthfully, now that I think back on it, the scenario I had envisioned was so dire, so over-the-top, that the question is probably moot but I wanted to give it some consideration.

Unrelated to gun carry but related to the question of "to hide or not to hide?" I am also curious about how folks feel about their EDC or BOBs.

In an USK/PSK thread, I noticed that many felt that backpacks might draw too much attention in an urban bugout setting. But, in my mind, short of "tactical-looking" packs and gear, most back packs would serve well and not draw much attention.

True, a Wallstreeter hoofing it with a Jansport might look odd, but if people are bugging out of the area, they might not bother to think about it as they would have more pressing concerns themselves.

Do folks eschew rucks, molle gear and the like for your BOBs for this reason?

Regarding the look of a BOB, walking around with a backpack in the financial district of San Francisco (or any other Cali downtown) would not look strange at all. I used to work at a law firm where a few partners used backpacks instead of brief cases. Employees who rode motorcycles were typically using backpacks. Many of the wealthiest clients would show up to business meetings looking like the just finished milking cows. I'm sure there are quite a few other cities in America with cultures like that. We aren't in the 70's anymore.

Realistically, I can't imagine myself working in a stuffy city and walking with a complete BOB. I don't work downtown anymore. However, if I did, I would carry only the bare essentials in a rolling briefcase that also carried my laptop and other business stuff. I would go with a backpack for everything if that were most comfortable.

Yeah, I see lots of people in business attire toting backpacks. Especially those made my Oakley, Targus, etc. They seem to be more of a a hybrid backpack/briefcase. Don't stand out at all.

Our plan is to make a decision on bugging out (via private car), or bugging in (where we have a very defensible position, around 1 month of freeze dried food, a week's water supply, and the ability to store 100+ gallons more if the building's water tank doesnt run dry first).

Realistically, living in Manhattan as we do, we're likely to bug-in, since evacuating the island is hard enough on a Friday evening, let alone in a chaotic mass evacuation. If we do decide to bug out, our third line gear is preloaded into two military-style rucks, which we keep in a closet. We also keep a folding stroller in the car.

We'd bug out on foot only if we had to abandon our vehicle, which suggests a fairly high threat environment. Under those circumstances, we're assuming a non-permissive environment, so I care less about being low-profile.

Ha! Truer words were never spoken!



Certainly, in that case, anything goes. And I also think most other people would be considered about their own keisters to worry about what others around them are carrying.

I think, unfortunately, if NYers have to bug out, it would almost have to be on foot as I can't imagine our tunnels and bridges would be able to handle such an exodus. As you said, Friday nights are bad enough.

Cheers!

True of any large metro area. Bugging out is an option of last resort. If/when I bug-out from SOCAL it will appear to any onlookers like I'm moving; they'll be correct.

I wear a 5.11 vest and the customers in some of the stores assume you are an employee and ask you questions. The majority of the population is not very observant of what's going on around them.

I have a school uniform and I was in walmart and the same happened to me, I love how if someone sees someone they believe is at work Texting in a walmart isle, they do nothig but ask where dish soap is!!

A couple of years ago I was working in a business casual workplace and had on tan dockers and a red polo shirt for the day. i stopped at Target to pick something up and got asked for help about three times before I could get out of there - I realized that the 'uniform' was a red Target shirt and tan pants!

Paul -

Same -- Green polo shirt & tan pants, REI.

As a former Manhattanite myself, I would vote for using one of those grocery/laundry carts, the bigger size. Stick your BOB or other supplies in a laundry bag and no one will be the wiser.

Perhaps looking homeless will be the most "invisible" but as long as you don't look like the investment banker or Madison Ave hipster, you shouldn't draw much attention pushing one of those carts down the sidewalk. Probably not common in many cities, but you see so many of those carts in NY, no one will think it looks out of place.

Plus, you can certainly carry more weight for a longer distance in a cart, which will be important if you have to hoof it somewhere, like out of Manhattan across one of the bridges. If you really wanted to take the pistol-grip-only or folding stock shotgun with you, the cart will also allow you to hide it more easily/conveniently than on your person.

A bicycle with paniers would be an option. You could also double the weight load if you just pushed it. Might blend in a little better too.

I too would vote for the bicycle. You can also make some serious mileage (easily up to fifty miles a day, even if you are not a hardened biker) and you can easily bypass traffic jams.

I would agree with the bicycle if the assumption is that you're going to ride the bicycle all the way from point A to B. But, like in the NYC example (like 9/11), maybe you need to hoof it over the rivers, but once on the other side, it's possible that public transit is available, but you'll need to take a series of buses, subways, or trains. You'd likely have to dump the bike in such a situation because there just wouldn't be room for it on public transit.

What, abandon my bicycle? Could I leave my wife behind instead?

Haha, just like the Bridgestone tire commercial from the last Superbowl-- "Your tires...or your (w)ife".

> You'd likely have to dump the bike in such a situation because there just
> wouldn't be room for it on public transit.

That's a surprise. In the San Francisco Bay Area, I don't remember not seeing a bus with a bike rack on front. CalTrain and BART both allow bikes onboard.

Bus's in San Diego have bike racks up front also.

There are some commuters who use folding bicycles. Fairly light they fold in a few seconds into a large shoulder bag. Give that he bike itself deducts from your total cargo capacity your going to be limited in what you can carry. That said if your folding the bike to get on a bus it isn't like you're man hauling both bike and pack up a steep hill. Once on the bus your energy expenditure is limited. Pretty much if you can manage to trundle into the bus in good time and good order your good.

CarlosD: "...to let all around know you shouldn't be messed with..."

There will always be someone larger, tougher and meaner than you. Irritating them tends to be counter-productive. A bug that looks like a stick or bird poop can be easily overlooked.

Sue

A bug that looks like bird poop... I wanna see one!! That would be a great prank!!

To address the firearm, thing. I have been through several natural disasters and the only time I saw a firearm used was when a policeman shot a dog believed to be rabid.
I for one am of the opinion that what best separates ETS from most of those "survivalist" forums is the lack of whacko "chairborne commandos" with their black guns and ammo stacked to the ceiling.
I seriously doubt you will ever find yourself in circumstances that would require serious firepower. I think discretion and situational awareness are much better tools to employ than Walter Mitty-esque fantasies of gunning down hordes of mutant zombies or whatever your paranoid delusions conjur up.
I buy more bandaids and beans than bullets. We need builders and healers, especially in the aftermath of bad times

Well, so far on this site, I haven't seen any posts from people who seem to be "chairborne commandos" who just want to shoot up zombies. When people talk about guns on this site, from what I've seen, the posters have legitimate, practical questions about the use of firearms in a survival situation. It seems that only the people who would rather NOT carry protection are coming up with condescending statements toward people who want to carry.

A person who is thinking about security and self-defense at least somewhat, that's the only type of person who has my ear when it comes to survival situations. No offense, but it's difficult to pay attention to a person who freely chooses to be weaponless. I personally don't understand the complex arguments for intentionally NOT carrying a weapon if you have the opportunity to do so legally and easily. Further, if you are thinking about self-defense weapon at all, then a handgun or other gun is a highly efficient self-defense tool, and quite a bit more efficient than a knife, your fists, a voodoo mind trick or whatever else you may have in mind to protect yourself.

Hey Tarzan! CHARLIE DONT SURF!!! This thread is Urban Preparedness! Carlos started a VALID thread,I read it, pages 1 thru 5 & Thought it to be Enlightening,Until your opinion popped up.Opinions are like keisters...Everybody has one!

I gotcha. But, just to clarify, what I meant was not to look bad-a$$ but to give people pause and make them decide if tangling with you is worth the risk.

If we're "migrating", ne'er-do-wells may opt to hassle someone who is not clearly armed and take their supplies rather than someone who is visibly a risk.

But again, that was my initial query.

After some thought and reading everyone's responses, I agree that it's best to keep what resources you have (self-defense weapons included) under wraps.

And no, I have no delusions of Matrix-like shoot outs or holing up with an armory. If it came down to it and I had to use a firearm to defend myself, I am aware (and accept) that it will be brief and brutal, regardless of who will actually win (much like real street fights or hand-to-hand self defense situations).

In addition to what i posted above about a 5.11 vest the other question people ask is how was the fishing(land of 10,000 lakes).