In our opening show we will discuss our goals for the Preparedness Radio Network show, the mindset behind what we are doing, and the background of the host.
We also discuss how David gets his ideas, and he will discuss the newest idea shared with him, which was an easy way to prevent mold growing in the milk bottles his young son likes to hide…
You can download the show to listen later at this link.
l am quite happy to be a host for preparedness radio network. I hope the show lasts for a while. I enjoy helping others and I think that podcasting is another way to do that.
One thing I worry about is coming up with enough ideas to keep a weekly podcast and a weekly youtube video without messing up the quality of either.
Luckily there is a lot of information to explore and share. My goal is that we actually converse and people call in and talk. I find a two way discussion is much more fun that a lecture. Besides when people talk they learn more than when a single person just rambles on.
I recently heard a term that, as both a prepper as well as an urban homesteader, spoke to me. It is such a simple term that I wish I had devised it. Fortunately by tracking down the term’s creator I met an interesting group of people that share the same common goals. The creator of this term is Mike Bostick, and the group I am talking about it the Prepper Reality Network.
While today’s article is focused on the term prepsteading, its origins, meanings, and why there needs to be a differentiation between it and homesteading, I do want to mention the PRN, and encourage you to listen to their nightly call in internet talk show and participate in their online community. This is a new group, but from what I have learned in talking with Mike, they are most interested in building a vibrant online community where preppers can learn, socialize, and feel welcome.
Now on to prepsteading….
Prepsteading is the combination of prepping and homesteading, and makes use of the best elements of both.
Traditionally homesteading was done as part of the back to the land movement where individuals wanted to have a closer connection to the earth. In more recent times, homesteading is attractive primarily to those with a concern for sustainability and appropriate technology. This means that most homesteading information is geared toward green living. I think homesteaders are default preppers. Do you?
Prepping, as a general rule, is primarily gear driven and many (if not most) prepper activities revolve around acquiring resources and storing supplies.
Both of these terms describe admirable traits, and can complement each other. You do not have to be a hippy to want to live on a sustainable and ecologically friendly homestead, just as you don’t have to be paranoid to store supplies to sustain you during a large scale disaster. That is where prepsteading comes in.
By definition, a disaster involves great loss, and catastrophic disasters can take decades to recover from. It is not a stretch to assume that you may lose your supplies, or run out of supplies if the disaster was large enough. In the prepping community many people plan to “bug out” or leave their residences in order to move to the country so that they may be able to produce their own food. A few rare pioneers such as James Rawles of survivalblog recommend living at your bug out location (BOL), full time.
Prepsteading is the concept of mitigating catastrophic disasters living as self-reliant life as possible. By producing your own food, creating your own infrastructure, and disconnecting as much as possible from the grid, you are insulating yourself from disruptions caused by the failure of normal infrastructure.
I am an urban homesteader, I try to produce as much food as I can, and reduce my need for utilities a much as practical while still living in a suburban area. I would love to own my own homestead, but I have to balance my resources. Time taken to build and maintain a self-reliant farm competes with the time needed to earn the resources to pay for it.
I think Mike has a great idea, and I would love to see the concept take off and grow. In my opinion the more people that learn to grow their own food and make their own way in life the stronger our country will be, and the more disaster resilient the citizens will become.
If you want to learn more, Mike has a weekly internet call in show where he talks about this and much more…
This Friday morning I was sad to discover an article on emergency management.com in the “Disaster Academia” section entitled Doomsday Preppers are Socially Selfish. Why do people think Preppers are selfish? It amazes me how someone in emergency management that claims through her “academic” title to be intelligent fails to grasp how preppers actually contribute to safer communities.*
Both federal, state, and local emergency management agencies, as well as NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) like the Red Cross constantly educate the public on the need to have basic preparedness kits to be able to take care of themselves until the emergency response resources can be organized and distributed. The CERT program (community emergency response teams) is a federal/state program with a proven track record. The program takes citizens with an interest in disaster response/emergency preparedness and provides training in urban search and rescue, first aid, and other vital response skills. The goal of this emergency management program is to reduce the load on “professional” responders by using trained citizens based in their own communities. No one is better suited for CERT than preppers.
Ms. Valerie Lucus-McEwen goes on to say:
You might wonder why someone like me, who has been in the business of encouraging disaster preparedness for a very long time, is so critical of people who are doing just that. It’s because they are being socially selfish – preparing themselves and the hell with everyone else. Instead of spending time and energy making changes that would benefit the larger community, in their very narrow focus of loyalty they are more concerned about themselves.
This is false on many levels, but I will pick out a couple. First, even if Preppers are Selfish, by logical extension so is buying car insurance. It is spending personal resources to protect against a potential future problem. Does Ms. Lucus-McEwen want me to pay for everyone’s car insurance if I am to have some for myself? Prepping, like insurance, is something everyone can get, and everyone makes a decision how much they want to invest. It is not saying ”to hell with everyone else”, its saying I am going to be socially RESPONSIBLE, and spend time and energy making changes that benefits the larger community by freeing governmental resources to go to those truly in need. No government, organization, or person can afford to be totally prepared for everything, we have seen the devastation caused by Presidential Disasters like Katrina, Gustav, and most recently Sandy. The government has good plans, and some great people, and a deep pocket to pay for response, but it is not the solution to every problem, nor can it be.
She then goes on to say:
Emergency Managers can’t afford that kind of attitude. It is diametrically opposed to everything we do. Our job is to prepare individuals and communities and jurisdictions and regions and – ultimately – the globe for disasters, knowing we won’t always succeed. I could find statistics about how unprepared some citizens are, and then show you hundreds of active and volunteer CERT teams preparing whole communities. In major disasters (think 9-11 or the Christ Church earthquake or Superstorm Sandy), survivors for the most part WANT to help each other.
I too am a professional emergency manager, my degree is in Emergency Management, and I have responded to several large disasters during my tenure in this field. My experience causes me to feel the exact opposite. I cannot afford to not assist preppers. Personal disaster preparedness is EXACTLY what we should strive to induce in the American populace. Personal responsibility and self-reliance has made this country great. Instead of looking down our noses at citizen preppers, and smugly judge their reasons, we should focus on what we have in common, and learn to work with them because we, as emergency managers have more in common with preppers than we have differences.
*Update
The website has changed names and the article has since been removed.
If you have any defensive firearm training of any sort, you have to have heard the term “Reasonable Force” at some point. The Reasonableness standard is probably the most important test when someone is trying to decide if your defensive action is justified or not.
However, you may ask just what is reasonable?
This is a large part of any firearm training I provide because I believe it is a lot easier to teach an individual HOW to shoot than it is to teach the WHEN to shoot.
Each state has its own laws, and I am not an attorney so I cannot give you a legal opinion on the law, but based upon my training and experience as a firearm instructor I can give you some points of consideration for you to research on your own.
I also feel the need to inform you that my training is geared more toward armed professionals (LE and Security), and that the majority of legal case law that I know is geared toward them. However, I do believe that many of the lessons learned from police shootings apply to civilians as long as the armed citizen understands the entire situation, including the legal differences between LE and citizen.
In my security classes I talk a lot about Tennessee vs. Garner and Graham v. Conner, but they are just the starting point for learning about legal use of force.
For citizens, it is important to know that you do not get to decide if your action is reasonable. Of course you think your action was right – otherwise you probably would not have done it.
The first person to decide on the reasonableness of your act will be the responding officer, then prosecutors, judges, the media, your family, friends, and the general public.
We know that no single person is perfect – and as a group we are not perfect – there is no real person that we can hold to be perfectly reasonable 100% of the time, but by creating the legal fiction of a reasonable man –Our legal system can use this fiction as an objective tool to avoid subjective decisions. This creates a system where the law works in a foreseeable, uniform and neutral manner when attempting to determine fault.
The reasonable person standard assumes that each person has a duty to behave as any reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.
The law cannot predict specific circumstances of each case, but the reasonable person standard does not change. You have act in a reasonable way, no matter what is happening.
The question on reasonableness is; would a reasonable person, in the similar circumstances act as you did.
This is not democratic – it is not comparing your actions to that of the average person, the average person may be wrong (look at the last couple elections or the ratings for reality TV)– but the fictional Reasonable Person is not.
The Reasonable Person weighs:
The foreseeable risk of harm his actions may create against the utility of his actions.
The extent of the risk he is going to create;
The likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
Any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives
Taking such actions requires the reasonable person to be informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks it is always reasonable.
This is pretty hard for the average person to live up to without a certain amount of preplanning, training, and serious thought.
Calculus of Negligence
Federal Judge Learned Hand wrote about a concept called the “calculus of negligence” he wrote that the duty to provide against injuries is a function of three variables: probability of injury; the gravity of the resulting injury, and the burden of adequate precautions.
It can be expressed as B<PL
B is the cost (burden)
P is the probability of loss.
L is the gravity of loss.
The product of P x L must be a greater amount than B
As this applies to self-defense –
B (The cost in life caused by your actions in shooting the bad guy) has to be less than the product of the probability of him hurting you and how serious your injuries would have been.
If we used a scale from 0 – 100 for injuries – 0 being no injury and 100 being death:
and you shot someone and killed them(100) because he said he was going to kill you but he had no ability to do so (0 for probability 100 for the gravity)
Is your action reasonable? Since you did the highest harm (100) against a 0% probability but with a 100 gravity of loss (100*0)=0
You’re obviously going to jail.
Now – this is an unrealistic formula to use in a self-defense situation, please so not call a time out on the two way range so you can whip out your calculator to decide to shoot back or not. However, since understanding the concept essential, I threw it in to help illustrate the concept.
Reasonable Officer Test
The “reasonable officer” standard is a method often applied to law enforcement and other armed professions to help determine if a use of force was correctly applied. While the use of officer will seem to exclude the armed citizen, and the armed citizen is not a professional, I would posit that the test is useful to them as a guide for their actions.
The test is usually applied to whether the level of force used was excessive or not.
If an appropriately trained professional:
Knowing what the subject of the investigation knew at the time and following their agency guidelines (such as a force continuum)l;
Would have used the same level of force or higher;
Then the standard is met.
For the armed citizen:
If an appropriately trained individual:
Knowing what the shooter knew at the time and following the applicable laws on self defense;
Would have used the same level of force or higher;
Then it would be hard to say the citizen’s action was unreasonable.
What is appropriately trained?
Carrying a gun creates a risk to others – the reason it is called a gunfight is because you have a gun. Whenever a person undertakes a skills-based activity (like shooting) that creates a risk to others, they are held to the minimum standard of how a reasonable person experienced in that task would act, regardless of their actual level of experience. By deciding to be armed you are taking on the responsibility to know what you are doing and will be held accountable – even if you don’t know anything about your gun, the law, or accepted self-defense shooting technique.
However, factors external to the defendant are always relevant. So is the context within which each action is made. It is within these circumstances that the determinations and actions of the defendant are to be judged. There are a virtually unlimited amount of factors that could provide inputs into how a person acts: individual perceptions, knowledge, the weather, etc. The determination of reasonableness has to be made after taking into account the totality of the incident – how big was the attacker, how skilled, was it dark, how fit was the citizen, what was their level or training. It is because of this concept that things like “New York Triggers” and DA only guns were built – lawyers make fortunes attempting to prove or disprove how things such as ammunition type and who manufactured it, firearm modifications, training records apply in specific cases.
Emergency versus Non-Emergency
Lastly, since self-defense is a circumstance that requires urgency is important to preventing hindsight bias from affecting the trier of fact. Given pressing such circumstances, a reasonable person may not always act in a manner similar to how she would have acted in a more relaxed setting. An example would be toy guns versus real guns – if your being kidnapped, and someone is pointing a gun at you and telling you to get in their car, you may not have the presence of mind to tell if the gun is real or airsoft (actually many states have laws that state that for the purposes of determining the crime, the fact that a gun is loaded, unloaded real or fake do not change the charge). If you defend yourself and it later is found that the gun is a fake, this concept may protect you from prosecution.
This is a complicated concept, but if you are an armed citizen you need to understand it. I spend a lot of time thinking about it, and how this concept would change how I act in a situation where I had to protect myself or my family. No internet article or video is going to be enough – I don’t know your state law, and I am no lawyer. Please get training from someone in your area, and if you decide to carry a firearm I would recommend spending a little money and finding a lawyer to talk with you for an hour or two about the specifics of your state’s law.
A close friend of mine sent me this email, and while I cannot find the source to give a citation, I feel it is very important to share.
I feel it has a dual meaning, both for Christians, as well as preppers. I hope you enjoy it, as it gave me something to ponder on.
Years ago, a farmer owned land along the Atlantic seacoast.
He constantly advertised for hired hands. Most people were reluctant to work on farms along the Atlantic . They dreaded the awful storms that raged across the Atlantic , wreaking havoc on the buildings and crops.
As the farmer interviewed applicants for the job, he received a steady stream of refusals. Finally, a short, thin man, well past middle age, approached the farmer. “Are you a good farm hand?” the farmer asked him.
“Well, I can sleep when the wind blows,” answered the little man.
Although puzzled by this answer, the farmer, desperate for help, hired him. The little man worked well around the farm, busy from dawn to dusk, and the farmer felt satisfied with the man’s work.
Then one night the wind howled loudly in from offshore.
Jumping out of bed, the farmer grabbed a lantern and rushed next door to the hired hand’s sleeping quarters. He shook the little man and yelled, “Get up! A storm is coming! Tie things down before they blow away!”
The little man rolled over in bed and said firmly, “No sir. I told you, I can sleep when the wind blows.”
Enraged by the response, the farmer was tempted to fire him on the spot. Instead, he hurried outside to prepare for the storm.
To his amazement, he discovered that all of the haystacks had been covered with tarpaulins. The cows were in the barn, the chickens were in the coops, and the doors were barred. The shutters were tightly secured. Everything was tied down.
Nothing could blow away. The farmer then understood what his hired hand meant, so he returned to his bed to also sleep while the wind blew.
When you’re prepared, spiritually, mentally, and physically, you have nothing to fear.
Can you sleep when the wind blows through your life?
The hired hand in the story was able to sleep because he had secured the farm against the storm.
We secure ourselves against the storms of life by grounding ourselves in the Word of God.
We don’t need to understand, we just need to hold His hand to have peace in the middle of storms.
This Friday morning I was sad to discover an article on emergency management.com in the “Disaster Academia” section entitled Doomsday Preppers are Socially Selfish. Why do people think Preppers are selfish? It amazes me how someone in emergency management that claims through her “academic” title to be intelligent fails to grasp how preppers actually contribute to safer communities.*
