[Psalm 73]

Read the article, I like his responses, and I understand where he is coming from.
But do not agree that a suburban location is more difficult to defend than an urban one.
Houses are close enough to provide interlocking fire, and as long as you don't live in one of those "Mcmansions" the smaller house size is easier to defend on its own with two or three people.
Besides, in the suburbs one doesn't have to worry about taking fire from a hihher location (nothing over two stories, most only one story in my neighborhood).

[driftdiver]

For my suburban location you have two choices, the main road or through the swampy, snake infested trees. I’d wager >95% of the people would choose the road. The other 5% are probably too much for me to handle anyway.

The one thing I don’t see mentioned is that normal houses are useless for stopping bullets. Even concrete block and brick do little to stop penetration of 9mm and bigger.

[buffaloguy]

“But do not agree that a suburban location is more difficult to defend than an urban one.”

I agree with you for several reasons:
1. The suburbs have a lot of organizational talent and would form groups to protect areas. Their organizational talent has been recognized by increases in salary which allowed them move to the suburbs. This is not an attribute which is trivial, it is major. Groups would be formed and would link up with others. Subgroups would be formed with specialties ie., Communications, Food Acquisition, spiritual, area defense, etc. Their organization would reflect corporate organization and would be successful.
2. The suburbs are heavily armed, more so than the urban areas.
3. Gangbangers half life when venturing into the suburbs in a shtf scenario would be ummm.....less than optimal...
4. There is room in the suburbs to grow food. It would have to be guarded, but that would be easy to arrange.
5. Interlocking fire is not a problem.

I would much rather be in a suburb than an urban area. Many more resources available.