It would make sense that contingency planning groups go over the scenarios and how they would work vs what they are in a position to actually accomplish. We do it, they do it, to some degree all interested parties ought to be putting study groups on the subject.

I have every intention of contributing the use of a lot of my tools equipment and services for community use, MY community. It just makes sense that way. I can't protect myself or my tuff 24/7, but by pitching in, my neighbors, people on the street, they can.

For example, my mobile workshop trailer is already a community resource and part of my local positive karma situation, but in the event of a disaster, I have every intention of making it's electrical system a community hub for people to charge cell phones and run at least some communication equipment. I positioned it on the edge of the local dog walking park anyway but just inside the private property zone, and close enough to where we would be setting up a neighborhood access checkpoint that our foot patrols could stop by at the beginning and end of shift to swap out things like radios, batteries, flashlights, and grab a hot cup of coffee for the start of shift, of a nip of alcohol to soothe themselves at the end of a shift and go home to get some sleep.

In the event of looting or hostile government action, it's not me vs the mob, but my mob vs the other mob, which betters the odds in our favor. Note, ALL courses of action and inaction in ths are risky and will likely have some compromises, and while some things I can compromise on others I will not.

It is not just about having guns around, but people who see the common sense of being your allies and putting those guns to use in your favor if it really comes down to it. People who know that THEY are better off with you alive than dead.

Now there are serious limits to community organizing, like it would have to be a seriously trusted previously organized community with everyone involved clearly vetted before someone takes it upon themselves to just start issuing weapons, but then remember, SHTF, the rules change. The felon down the street might well be a hell of a lot more trustworthy in the situation than some stray emergency aid workers and FEMA personnel who were attracted to the disaster like flies to shit. If they rob and kill you, they just go home to Mom, Pop and Apple pie, nobody the wiser about what they "had to do for the public good", while that felon down the street has his neighborhood rep to be concerned with not to mention the hassle of having to move or explain to close friends and family who may have a better idea of how truthful he was in telling his side of the story on how something went down.

That said, people also have to be capable of coordinating efforts and not bringing too many outside loyalties into a situation - that being exactly what was going on in the Zimmerman case down in Florida right now. Zimmerman being frustrated over apparent police protection of criminals, profiled Martin and initiated hostile contact when specifically told not to. He had reason to distrust the motives of the police dispatcher who told him not to make contact, and his own lack of prudent care in initiating contact is what he is getting blamed for when shooting Martin after Martin attacked him.

That goes to the necessity of needing to quickly judge the character of those you are stuck with and pushing those situations into appropriate roles. Aggression is good in firefighters and combat troops, not so good in community oriented policing. Then there are issues on how you get judged, and my life experience has been that those traditional roles of "right wing vs left wing" thinking often don't readily apply to how people will actually judge and behave. This is especially the case when generally liberal people suddenly become victims of extreme violence. That is part of why the script writers for the Charles Bronson character in the Death Wish movie series start him out as a "liberal" in order to illustrate the point.