ultprep

Members
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

ultprep's Achievements

  1. I have a question that I've been pondering for some time. Many talk a lot about preparedness but somehow seem to fail to take into account "location, location, location". Seems to me like trying to ride out a big disaster (whether natural or man-made) in an urban area is not a very good idea. Recently watched this new film that is pretty convincing about how much better off one would be in a rural area (city dangers film website). Is it just me??? Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to be where you can grow your own food and not have the entire garden ravaged in one night? And then the water is a big deal...how are you going to have a decent water source in the city during a serious situation? Or how would one be able to heat their home in the winter without land that has trees on it? (this is an extremely serious issue particularly in the northern parts). And then all the civil unrest that is likely to break out (like the congressman on the video said)... It just seems like a "no-brainer" to me if at all possible. And I think most anyone that wants to do it badly enough can if they are willing to put a lot of work in on it. Generally the less money you have, the more "elbow grease" you have to put in on it. Although not ideal, you can even do the long-term lease type thing if you have no money to buy with. And to be perfectly honest, although debt is a really bad idea and I have always steered clear of it, I would rather be in debt in the country than in debt in the city. Make any sense?