My son and I had this debate today. We were at a mall that's pretty much empty. It's a big two-story mall with several anchor stores and maybe 50 or so smaller shops, as well as a food court. The mall is being readapted to something else, so everything but a couple of the stores are closed and the whole upper floor is vacant. The food court is also gone. As we walked past all the empty shops, my son remarked that it would be a great place for the end of the world on the 23rd or if the zombie apocalypse comes. He argues that a family could grab any one of the empty stores and use it as a living space, and that the mall, as a whole, would be easy to defend, if a group was there.
I'm thinking no. Having that many people together in an end-of-times or emergency situation is dangerous, and you can't rely on people to protect the perimeter. Plus, there are so many points of entry. Once something happens inside or gets inside, you're mostly a sitting duck. Sure, you can pull down the door of your storefront, but you can't get out. Plus, if you run out of food or whatever, you have to leave, and the place is surrounded by concrete. You've got no cover to get away. I think it would be better to board up the windows at home, protect your four walls, enjoy the benefits of on-site food storage, and wait for things to cool off before trying to go anywhere... and then, you want to get as far away from people as possible.
What say ye? Who has the better plan? How would you handle it or improve upon it?
WelbyQuentin 