What I thought would be interesting to find out is:
* Have you already planned for this, or have you not?
* How do you think these gangs will carry out their task?
* How have/will you prepare for it?
* What resources do you have to protect against this (build a plan and carry it out)?
* What if you have young children?
2) Brute force and Ignorance
4) Our collective family gray matter, and plans basically, with contingencies for variations and some more likely problems.
5) Do not have any.
6) ... [ETC]. Perhaps the better place to be is in a smaller community or town of roughly 500 people. This is a model based on something along this subject line elsewhere on the forum (do not have thread reference) previously discussed.
There is some safety in numbers from a variety of standpoints. In the case of gangs, several hundred adults and older children protecting their young, and homes, are at least in theory capable of putting to flight, or destruction, any average street mob, regardless of type.
Larger towns with populations running into the thousands ought to be able to do likewise if
a sufficient number of townsfolk can organize their resistance in advance
. Otherwise they may fall piecemeal.
The worst place by far is the larger city. Since;
a) Police will be looking after their own families (and rightly so)
b) Large city populations lack the social bonds between significant enough numbers of people to organize against even a modest size gang. Unless such organization is made well in advance it will be of little or no avail. Forget Hollywood.
You need alot of manpower, controlling an area with a buffer zone to do this. No one should be deceived here, even a group of a few dozen households or apartment dwellers will not be able to hold off determined street gangs. When the shooting starts and the Molotovs start flying it's just a matter of a short time.
So my advice to city dwellers is be prepared to leave before any of this starts. If this is not possible then at least make the effort to leave when the time comes; whatever the risks are in the latter case, better than staying put until what will almost certainly be a most bitter end.
Very small rural communities, and even remote isolated single households will likely fare better than large city dwellers in my opinion. Firstly because the exposure risk off the main highways etc are less. Perhaps more importantly in such settings one has immediate control over larger land areas compared to the urban dweller. This affords opportunities to plan and put into place and practice some cunning and helpful strategies and even "fortifications" in a manner of speaking. Rather than delve into this subject here, a lengthy one, anyone with the brains to live in the rural and remote settings ought to be able to figure out things they can do to turn their home, or small community, into a little Swiss porcupine. Maybe not prickly enough to turn a very large determined group, but at least enough to defend against smaller straggling bands roving the countryside.
To expand just alittle on this, such scenarios are the subject of many historical narratives, and books - new and old. Wartime, and "peacetime". Some good, some bad.
My three cents worth offhand.