It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

to loot or not to loot

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
If a sit-x event were to happen would you? And if you would what would you take? We saw what happened after the Katrina hurricane. If there was a total collapse where and what would you loot or would you even loot at all?

respectively

reluctantpawn




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Reluctant to answer on grounds that one day it might incriminate me!


But since you asked...

Food, medical supplies and other neccessities - Yes. But only after every available resource of my own, my extended family and friends had been exhausted. I would then remit the money for the items at a later date.

Big screen T.V.'s - no. And I would take whatever neccessary measures to protect property of mine and others.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I'm of the same philosophy as my favorite comedian Peter Kay on this one..

“When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realized that The Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me.”




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith
I'm of the same philosophy as my favorite comedian Peter Kay on this one..

“When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realized that The Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me.”

I thought that was George Carlin. Has Peter been around longer? I'm not familiar with his work.

As to the OP, I think I would loot from the looters. Less competition in one spot.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by subject x]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
If it was stuff I needed, yeah, I would. Seriously, who wouldn't? If you don't take it somebody else will. Might as well help you and your family. But thats only in a emergency situation.

I wouldn't take other stuff, what good is it going to do? My house is underwater, and the town is burning down, but I have a nice TV to carry around.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Dependant on the situation really. For the short term I couldn't bring myself to do it. Long term might be a different story. My other question might be just who would you loot? And what would you take?

respectfully

reluctantpawn

[edit on 31-1-2008 by reluctantpawn]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I remeber hearing on a survial program about this, I believe it was "Chris Ryan*

He suggested that as soon as you heard of some major crisis, ie Sit x...
to get all the money you had and buy all the essentials you can..

that way you may beat the looting and able to hide up while the rest go in to chaos,



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Such a hard question to consider without the pressures of reality.

I think the best sort of answer is simply to prepare so well that one would not need to loot.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Well I think that given this question in a sit-x, we might as well come right out and ask the question:

Would you kill for food as a last resort to live?

Because really, that's what it's going to come down to. What makes you think that the next guy isn't going to be just as ready to kill you for your food when he's starving and desperate? Looting? Ha, thing of the past in a worst-case sit-x. Everyone will have their guns and be on the lookout for looters, and I guarantee you in that case it would be shoot first ask questions later.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
Such a hard question to consider without the pressures of reality.

I think the best sort of answer is simply to prepare so well that one would not need to loot.


Bingo. Star for that one.

I have to go with Thou shall not steal. If the owners were no longer living due to disaster, (not because of you) it is then scavenging to take what is found.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


If I lived in the US I'd start killin' much earlier long before food was an issue. Soon as the cops don't help anymore. Shoot anyone who even looks at you "funny". People unfortunate enough to live in cities? Hunt in armed packs and defend a common crib for the non-warrior women and children of YOUR crew.

I'd not be surprised that since the USA "went through the great change" more rather than less folks will feel less tolerant of the type of Brownian failures of the past or the jackboot shenanigans of the present. Stressed people will do almost anything... they panic. Like when someone yells fire...

Best to have alternate plans to avoid such things if one can.


Cheers, I like O'Bama and McCain. Upgrades.


Vic

[edit on 31-1-2008 by V Kaminski]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
This is gonna sound like a cop-out... I would "selectively" loot as necessary. Food, medical supplies, survival items... stuff like that. I doubt that you would see me in a swarm of people clearing off store shelves though. More than likely I would wait things out for as long as possible and then rummage through abandonded houses for the items I would need that are crucial to survival.

On another note... doing so would require extreme caution. I can tell you straight away that my cache of goods will be heavily booby-trapped. No telling what you might walk into.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee
If the owners were no longer living due to disaster, (not because of you) it is then scavenging to take what is found.


That would depend entirely on the authorities, and in a major-x that would be the military...if you've seen the movie, Threads, after the dust has settled, the military are patrolling the streets, and anyone scavenging empty properties for food or resources are determined as looters, and detained, or those who try to escape, are shot...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Well, I'm gonna modify an old saying here...

You can steal a fish and you'll have one meal, or you can teach yourself to fish and then you'll never go hungry...

I know..... but it still works.

People should always be prepared. Defend yourself with knowledge. Buy and learn to use a bow. Get interested in camping and survival, etc. Know a good (remote) location you can retreat with your family to, and keep some extra fuel to get you there. If you have all the basic gear of a good outdoorsman you'll be fine.

You won't need to fight with your neighbor over the last can of beans at Wal-mart.

So, no. I do not need to loot, and I would not.
Not because I think its wrong or anything (desparate times calls for desparate measures..), but it is a temporary fix to what could be a long term problem (if/when situation X happens).



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by asala
I remeber hearing on a survial program about this, I believe it was "Chris Ryan*

He suggested that as soon as you heard of some major crisis, ie Sit x...
to get all the money you had and buy all the essentials you can..

that way you may beat the looting and able to hide up while the rest go in to chaos,


Ah a good point!. Perhaps this is already being carried out but on a global scale?. There are countries like the USA for example, that in recent years, is spending money like water and running up massive debts to the tune of Trillions of dollars. Now if they knew "money" was going to be useless in the near future it would certainly make good sense to run up massive debts on preparing for the worse knowing you didn't have to repay this back later...

[edit on 31/1/2008 by Freelancer]

[edit on 31/1/2008 by Freelancer]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
True, but if you are wrong, you're in a heap of trouble.

Evading the taxman is difficult.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
If and when I would need to loot, as I am already well prepared. I don't think I would the main stores. There are a number of distribution centers and warehouses within one days travel on foot. They are generally considered to be in a rural area. I too would look for medical supplies. Footwear for my growing children as well as clothing might be considered if it was a complete breakdown. Batteries if they could be found. Barterable goods. Toletries. What would you give for a roll of charmin after six months without? Generally I am well prepared. I might consider extra garden tools and seeds. Spices might be bartered. It is interesting to consider the things that might be left alone by the masses and openly available to those that are prepared and not on the run or desperate. Even concrete blocks for hardening defenses might be considered if time and circumstances require it. Any one have other ideas. Please understand that I certainly would not go out for a short term emergency only if all bets are off and the world as we know has collapsed. There is a difference between those that need and those that are taking advantage of opportunity.
"Here let me watch your food while you go get that big screen" man seen running with bag.


respectfully

reluctantpawn



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I don't really see looting as necessary provided a few fairly simple precautions are taken. A scavenging time will come but as pointed out earlier, that's not looting.

The sad fact of the matter is that in a full scale collapse the first two months will produce a tremendous number of casualties for various reasons. During that time it's best to just lay low and stay out of trouble. Man's inhumanity to man will be the first thing to take it's toll on the population. This will begin with the initial cause of the sit-x and almost immediately be followed by the altercations between looters and those trying to protect what's theirs. These altercations taking place nation wide and possibly even world wide will take a tremendous toll on the population. There's a lot of totally ruthless people out there without even the semblance of a conscience. Many of them will want to just take over. For a while, to venture out will be like swimming in shark infested waters with an open wound. No, thank you.

There will be an unimaginable number of unburied dead and a collapse of services and this will usher in the next pair of killers and make no mistake, they will be more ruthless than the first. Those killers are known as disease and famine. They don't care who you are and can't be reasoned with. They killed more people in the Civil War (nothing civil about it) than were killed by enemy fire and they're still with us. I believe that those who do survive will see a loss of 2/3 of the population within the first year. Even if martial law is initially put into place it will soon enough become untenable. Those who survive all of this will be mostly those who laid low and separated themselves from the chaos as much as possible.

What does all this have to do with looting? When 2/3 of the people are gone and all of the "stuff" that ever was is still here the concept of "looting" will be replaced with the concept of "scavenging". Even the concept of land ownership will have to be re-defined. I own three parcels of land in two states with two of them being separated from the third by a distance of 300 miles. I "own" those properties because pieces of paper at the respective court houses say that I do. If those court houses no longer exist or the government that they represented is now defunct, what do I own? From then on, at least until some type of reconstruction takes place, I'll own what I say I own and am strong enough to defend. It will balance out though because if I'm not occupying what the court houses now say I own, someone else probably will be. That's ok too. The rules will change and legal concepts will have to be re-defined.

Legalities will change but moralities won't. Looting is stealing and stealing will remain a moral issue but if most of what's out there has no owner, then who would you be stealing from? I know, I know. I took this a little further down the road than the OP intended but the subject of survival is the last place one would want to be short sighted. I assume that pretty much everyone reading this is making preparations or they wouldn't even be here but just for the sake of anyone who is not:
Anyone whose plan is to ride out the present system to the last possible moment and then "take" what they think they need is not part of the solution. They're a part of the problem and a part of the mentality of greed and self gratification that is leading us into this mess in the first place. They are those who care nothing about human rights other that their own and nothing except wealth (absence of) really separates them from the corporate and political leaders who are relentlessly herding us into this mess. IMHO the world will be well rid of them.

What do you think happens when you die? Answer that and you will have settled the looting issue, at least for yourself.

Ed



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SemperParatus
 


Excellent post Semper. We must remember that the roaches and rats of society will be the ones to survive, unfortunately. That must be taken into account. There may be more to scavenge but the risks may be higher. If our society collapses then all bets are off. I don't doubt that the first few months will be the roughest. Many will die but I think it may take from six months to a year.

respectfully

reluctantpawn



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I believe in living according to laws, even my own personal laws in the absence of organized authority. I plan to not need to loot. That keeps me from being a hypocrite when I splatter your brains all over my back fence, when you try to steal some firewood.

Things will be a lot simpler when there are no more jails. No parole, no ajudicated sentences. No medium security, or probation or work-release.

There will only be three sentences, the ones the human race used up until about 200 years ago (and returns to in any crisis):

a) run the gauntlet, followed by being banished beyond the tribal lands.

b) maiming as a mark of moral failure. brandings, ear removal, etc.

c) the death penalty.



In a real crisis, c) is the only penalty that's ever invoked. I will be on the winning side in the argument, because I'm 100% committed to my course of action, and am convinced of it's moral appropriateness. And the people who have a definite plan are the ones who get their way. The looters are just improvising, and don't do nearly as well as the dedicated "enforcers." LA riots of '92 illustrate my point precisely. Looting didn't spread because some neighborhoods blocked off their streets and displayed rifles when pickups of looters stopped by. Those neighborhoods were not victimized. After order is restored, the looters are always arrested. no one ever seems to arrest the vigilantes.


Those situations that allow for looting, also allow for individual applications of summary justice.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join