The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => The Lounge => Topic started by: Guessed on August 20, 2009, 11:23:41 AM
-
have fun, because you're screwed anyway.
http://sync.sympatico.msn.ca/News/ContentPosting_CBC?newsitemid=zombie-attack-infection-model-research&feedname=CBC-TECH-SCIENCE-V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True&pagenumber=1 (http://sync.sympatico.msn.ca/News/ContentPosting_CBC?newsitemid=zombie-attack-infection-model-research&feedname=CBC-TECH-SCIENCE-V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True&pagenumber=1)
-
I was actually a little surprised that it even existed, to tell you the truth.
-
The key is to stick in smaller groups but not to exclude other people. A group of 20 people with a wide set of skills should allow for you to survive for months. The smaller the group, the easier to get overwhelmed; the larger the group is the harder it is to keep mobile or to provide for every person.
The only problem will be the initial panic. You want to build up your supplies as quick as possible, but the likelihood of you being the first person to think of going to X store for non perishable food and water is highly unlikely. Most people will have enough supplies in their house or within their community of houses to survive without needing to leave for 1-2 months, so this can be an option for people who don't live in populated areas. However this initial panic will also kill off a lot of idiots, so the resulting population is luckier and smarter, hopefully smart enough to realize that they can't survive alone.
Beyond 1-2 months assuming that civilization has collapsed, the first thing to do is to look for shelter with adequate construction, access to medical facilities, cooking supplies, internal electricity, communications, and heavy set doors. A few good examples include: Hospitals, high rise buildings, high schools, military bases, factories, etc. However all of these depend on specific situations, and may be better or worse depending on what you're looking for. Military bases may have weapons, but they're large and would limit you to using at most 3-4 buildings without spreading your defenses thin. Hospitals may have a seemingly infinite amount of medical supplies, but the chances of finding a hospital that is both empty and not in a densely populated area or zombie hotspot is a long shot. You should choose your building based on it's qualities first, then location, then size. My personal choice would be a high school, because the have medical facilities to cover any minor injuries, cooking facilities to feed around 1000 people, an emergency generator, and very thick doors.
-
have fun, because you're screwed anyway.
This revelation is older than the internet.
-
have fun, because you're screwed anyway.
This revelation is older than the internet.
But now a study has been done on it so it's not just internet folk-lore.
-
Headless zombies DNE.
-
This study posits that they can.
-
Here's a link to the paper (http://www.mathstat.uottawa.ca/~rsmith/Zombies.pdf) if anyone is interested.
-
This study posits that they can.
Well the study is retarded unless the virus is changing some other organ to dole out the signals for motor functions.
-
This study posits that they can.
Well the study is retarded unless the virus is changing some other organ to dole out the signals for motor functions.
Presumably, that's the case, I haven't read the study.
-
I love the guys name, Robert Smith?.
professor Robert J. Smith?, whose last name contains a question mark to distinguish his common name from that of other researchers.
-
(http://i28.tinypic.com/qx2bl0.jpg)
-
I STRONGLY suggest you all go out and read the book The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks. It can save your life.
-
I STRONGLY suggest you all go out and read the book The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks. It can save your life.
Old.
-
I STRONGLY suggest you all go out and read the book The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks. It can save your life.
Stupid shitty book sold at hot topic is stupid shitty book sold at hot topic.
-
Zombie Survivial Guide is interesting, but not exactly 'reading' material. It's literally like a field guide.
-
I think all this study demonstrates is how far from the founding principles of academia and the sciences university life has become.
-
I think the best place to go if you could would be a island fair out to sea. if they could close off there borders quick enough it would help. in fact anything in water over ten feet deep would probably be good. I don't no of any zombie coordinated enough to swim. even if they couldn't drown I doubt they would be smart enough to get up to you.
-
I think the best place to go if you could would be a island fair out to sea. if they could close off there borders quick enough it would help. in fact anything in water over ten feet deep would probably be good. I don't no of any zombie coordinated enough to swim. even if they couldn't drown I doubt they would be smart enough to get up to you.
The problem with an island is supplies. If you're say on a coastal shelf about 30-40 meters off the mainland, this might be your best option in terms of islands. However getting back on to the shore for supply runs is a problem
-
I think the best place to go if you could would be a island fair out to sea. if they could close off there borders quick enough it would help. in fact anything in water over ten feet deep would probably be good. I don't no of any zombie coordinated enough to swim. even if they couldn't drown I doubt they would be smart enough to get up to you.
The problem with an island is supplies. If you're say on a coastal shelf about 30-40 meters off the mainland, this might be your best option in terms of islands. However getting back on to the shore for supply runs is a problem
seems if you get enough fishing supplies you could go awhile without going back for supplies. if you also were on a big enough island that had some wildlife and edible plants you could go on for a quite a while.
-
Every refugee that can reach a boat or swim will head for an island, especially one so close to the shore. Zombies can drift/walk along the bottom, refugees will completely wipe out everything edible like a swarm of locusts and if you don't have the materials/ability to make your own equipment then you'll starve as soon as it breaks. The more desolate your haven, the safer you are.
-
My plan is a yatch in the local freshwater resevoir. With plenty of fish swimming below in crystal clear waters the situation would be liveable. I'd have a dinghy to swiftly return to shore if need be.
when you're on the move the best gear to wear would be full motorcycle riding leathers and helmet. I'd arm myself with one of these (http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z39/Miles_falchion/Mileswheel15cBarrow068.jpg) from my archive at work. A fascine knife (Except our one has a blade along it's broad side too.) nice and heavy with a broad, chunky blade for running battles or against several zombies and that nasty hook end for piercing the brains of individual zombies.
-
One problem with the island. If they did get there you couldn't touch them til they were on the island infecting it. Water is bulletproof. Something even 6 feet underwater is nearly impossible to hit with a bullet.
-
On Mythbusters they ended up saying about three feet of water on average, i think.
-
Meh, I'll believe them when they actually use their brains. Though in truth the percussion from a bullet missing you in water will still injure you pretty well.
-
But at 3 feet it becomes incredibly accurate anyway. If it hits you, it'll hurt, but that's if.
-
But it doesn't need to hit you. Have you ever gone rifle fishing? The object isn't to hit the fish, you intentionally miss and allow the percussion of the bullet to kill the fish.
The mythbusters also confirmed that the percussion of a bullet can kill fish from a distance. They just lack the ability to logically connect these things.
-
This is another problem. People think that guns are the best weapons for zombies. They are not. The average person is probably going to use like 4-5 rounds per zombie. Highly inefficient. BLunt objects or blades with a long reach are your best bets. I'd go to the medieval times about 10 minutes away from me and pillage all the axes and swords I could carry (probably like...1).
Now people think that you're going to get bit from that close, but if you just wear some thick clothing you should decrease your chances of them breaking your skin by a lot. Now I don't know how strong zombies will be, but I know that human teeth probably can't get through leather or denim that easily.
Every refugee that can reach a boat or swim will head for an island, especially one so close to the shore. Zombies can drift/walk along the bottom, refugees will completely wipe out everything edible like a swarm of locusts and if you don't have the materials/ability to make your own equipment then you'll starve as soon as it breaks. The more desolate your haven, the safer you are.
VERY true. But you have to balance desolation with resources. A desert may ensure that no zombies are going to be there, but for the same reason, you shouldn't be there either.
-
A good bolt action rifle or crossbow is likely to serve you better than a sword, unless it breaks the skull and destroys the brain the zombie survives. Beheading a zombie will only cripple it, it can still bite. Leather, denim and neoprene are probably the best accessible materials, sharkmail's probably the best of the lot. A desert will not slow the zombie, it will only mean they can survive for far longer. It's possible to survive in any climate, we've been doing it for as long as we could reach the climates in question. We can build a structure that allows us to live in space in relative comfort, we can build a desert home.
-
This is another problem. People think that guns are the best weapons for zombies. They are not. The average person is probably going to use like 4-5 rounds per zombie. Highly inefficient. BLunt objects or blades with a long reach are your best bets. I'd go to the medieval times about 10 minutes away from me and pillage all the axes and swords I could carry (probably like...1).
Now people think that you're going to get bit from that close, but if you just wear some thick clothing you should decrease your chances of them breaking your skin by a lot. Now I don't know how strong zombies will be, but I know that human teeth probably can't get through leather or denim that easily.
Every refugee that can reach a boat or swim will head for an island, especially one so close to the shore. Zombies can drift/walk along the bottom, refugees will completely wipe out everything edible like a swarm of locusts and if you don't have the materials/ability to make your own equipment then you'll starve as soon as it breaks. The more desolate your haven, the safer you are.
VERY true. But you have to balance desolation with resources. A desert may ensure that no zombies are going to be there, but for the same reason, you shouldn't be there either.
The problem with blunt weapons is risk of infection increases as proximity increases. A gun is the best bet because it keeps them away from you.
A blunt weapon may kill them quicker but one bite and you are fucked.
-
This is another problem. People think that guns are the best weapons for zombies. They are not. The average person is probably going to use like 4-5 rounds per zombie. Highly inefficient. BLunt objects or blades with a long reach are your best bets. I'd go to the medieval times about 10 minutes away from me and pillage all the axes and swords I could carry (probably like...1).
Now people think that you're going to get bit from that close, but if you just wear some thick clothing you should decrease your chances of them breaking your skin by a lot. Now I don't know how strong zombies will be, but I know that human teeth probably can't get through leather or denim that easily.
Every refugee that can reach a boat or swim will head for an island, especially one so close to the shore. Zombies can drift/walk along the bottom, refugees will completely wipe out everything edible like a swarm of locusts and if you don't have the materials/ability to make your own equipment then you'll starve as soon as it breaks. The more desolate your haven, the safer you are.
VERY true. But you have to balance desolation with resources. A desert may ensure that no zombies are going to be there, but for the same reason, you shouldn't be there either.
The problem with blunt weapons is risk of infection increases as proximity increases. A gun is the best bet because it keeps them away from you.
A blunt weapon may kill them quicker but one bite and you are fucked.
He did mention that. And the need for ammo makes guns an unwise choice in an extended conflict.
-
Yeah, guns are too inefficient. I mean unless you're trained with a gun half of your shots are going to be in the ground and not in a zombie's face. Wearing thick, thick clothing decreases the risk of being bitten at close range. Of course if we're talking about an all out brawl with hundreds of zombies, it doesn't matter if you miss one because you're going to hit SOMETHING. That's where, the holy grail comes into play, the SHOTGUN.
-
The shotgun wouldn't really do that well at any range. You'd miss with most of the shot, and it would hardly cause the supreme brain damage necessary to kill a zombie.
I'd want a high powered rifle which would take the head clean off. As for there being hundreds, it wouldn't matter what blunt weapon you had, they would kill you anyways.
-
Well, let's not say hundreds, let's say tens. If you're anywhere near hundreds of zombies, you're screwed even if they don't even see you.
And I don't care if shotguns don't work like they do in video games, I want one. It'll make me feel secure.
-
From security comes confidence, from confidence bravado, and from bravado death. You're better off in a permanent state of shitting yourself, you stay on guard.
-
No, your best state of mind is realizing that you are already dead. Then you can function again.
As for the shotgun, I've shot quite a few, and they kick like sons of bitches, and then do an inaccurate pattern of damage. Your only chance of killing zombies with it is using a slug, and then your accuracy is shot.
-
This is another problem. People think that guns are the best weapons for zombies. They are not. The average person is probably going to use like 4-5 rounds per zombie. Highly inefficient. BLunt objects or blades with a long reach are your best bets. I'd go to the medieval times about 10 minutes away from me and pillage all the axes and swords I could carry (probably like...1).
Now people think that you're going to get bit from that close, but if you just wear some thick clothing you should decrease your chances of them breaking your skin by a lot. Now I don't know how strong zombies will be, but I know that human teeth probably can't get through leather or denim that easily.
Every refugee that can reach a boat or swim will head for an island, especially one so close to the shore. Zombies can drift/walk along the bottom, refugees will completely wipe out everything edible like a swarm of locusts and if you don't have the materials/ability to make your own equipment then you'll starve as soon as it breaks. The more desolate your haven, the safer you are.
VERY true. But you have to balance desolation with resources. A desert may ensure that no zombies are going to be there, but for the same reason, you shouldn't be there either.
The problem with blunt weapons is risk of infection increases as proximity increases. A gun is the best bet because it keeps them away from you.
A blunt weapon may kill them quicker but one bite and you are fucked.
hence, this is me in the post-zombie world. Though I'd be slightly fatter and be wearing black.
(http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll232/chrissetti/zombiekillerchrissetti.jpg)
-
Guys I have been preparing myself for the inevitable zombie uprising since my uncle showed me 'resident evil' when I was 7. I have mentally gone through thousands of scenarios of what could happen and how I'll deal with it.
My state of mind won't be a problem.
-
hence, this is me in the post-zombie world. Though I'd be slightly fatter and be wearing black.
(http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll232/chrissetti/zombiekillerchrissetti.jpg)
You, sir, are ready.
EDIT: Replace the paddle with a gun though. It's too heavy for one hand, you wouldn't be able to do any real damage.
-
Paddle? Paddle?! That, sir is a fine Willow Cricket Bat, I live in Britain so chances of me coming across a gun and enough ammo are slim to bupkiss, the cricket bat is a relatively light object to batter them out of the way if I need to make a break for it.
-
Guys I have been preparing myself for the inevitable zombie uprising since my uncle showed me 'resident evil' when I was 7. I have mentally gone through thousands of scenarios of what could happen and how I'll deal with it.
My state of mind won't be a problem.
I watched the original dawn of the dead and since then i have to think about how i would deal with a zombie scenario when ever i go to a new place. ie the pub etc It does my wifes head in but at least ill be prepared when it happens.
-
Paddle? Paddle?! That, sir is a fine Willow Cricket Bat, I live in Britain so chances of me coming across a gun and enough ammo are slim to bupkiss, the cricket bat is a relatively light object to batter them out of the way if I need to make a break for it.
It looks like a 2 1/2 lb sort handle to me!!!
-
Paddle? Paddle?! That, sir is a fine Willow Cricket Bat, I live in Britain so chances of me coming across a gun and enough ammo are slim to bupkiss, the cricket bat is a relatively light object to batter them out of the way if I need to make a break for it.
You can't get a gun in Birmingham? There's a shop here that sells guns, crossbows and machetes, you should pop up sometime.
-
Paddle? Paddle?! That, sir is a fine Willow Cricket Bat, I live in Britain so chances of me coming across a gun and enough ammo are slim to bupkiss, the cricket bat is a relatively light object to batter them out of the way if I need to make a break for it.
You can't get a gun in Birmingham? There's a shop here that sells guns, crossbows and machetes, you should pop up sometime.
LOL
-
Paddle? Paddle?! That, sir is a fine Willow Cricket Bat, I live in Britain so chances of me coming across a gun and enough ammo are slim to bupkiss, the cricket bat is a relatively light object to batter them out of the way if I need to make a break for it.
You can't get a gun in Birmingham? There's a shop here that sells guns, crossbows and machetes, you should pop up sometime.
Where's that? The one in the arcade?
Either way I'm not experienced with guns and without the ammo it's kind of a dead weight
-
This just reinforces the fact that you need people with a wide set of skills. If you're going to travel with people, at least one of them has to be able to use a gun.
-
It's on Argyle Street, they sell ammo (you can make your own crossbow bolts too, so I suggest getting one) and using a gun's really easy.
-
I think the way you deal with a zombie attack is all dependent on what they are they like;
Will they die out without food like 28 days later (lets not get into the fact that they are not real zombies), will they be slow like the original night of the living dead or quick like the remake of dawn of the dead?
Either way, i think if your going to stay put, defending a ground floor base is suicide.
-
I think the way you deal with a zombie attack is all dependent on what they are they like;
Will they die out without food like 28 days later (lets not get into the fact that they are not real zombies), will they be slow like the original night of the living dead or quick like the remake of dawn of the dead?
Either way, i think if your going to stay put, defending a ground floor base is suicide.
IRL zombies are most like the Night of the Living Dead ones.
-
I think the way you deal with a zombie attack is all dependent on what they are they like;
Will they die out without food like 28 days later (lets not get into the fact that they are not real zombies), will they be slow like the original night of the living dead or quick like the remake of dawn of the dead?
Either way, i think if your going to stay put, defending a ground floor base is suicide.
IRL zombies are most like the Night of the Living Dead ones.
Well at least that makes it a bit 'easier'
-
Oh I can't believe I didn't bring that up earlier. The TYPE of zombie you're fighting is probably the most important factor in any scenario. Personally I pray that the zombies are like the ones in Shaun of the Dead.
-
Oh I can't believe I didn't bring that up earlier. The TYPE of zombie you're fighting is probably the most important factor in any scenario. Personally I pray that the zombies are like the ones in Shaun of the Dead.
Meet you all at the winchester..............................hang on, ground floor and too many windows.
FAIL
-
They had the best chance in Liz's apartment. Barricade the stairs with EVERYTHING, clear the floor that they were on, and the ones above it.
-
If they were shaun of the dead zombies I'd just stay at home with a bat and pretend to be them.
-
Oh I can't believe I didn't bring that up earlier. The TYPE of zombie you're fighting is probably the most important factor in any scenario. Personally I pray that the zombies are like the ones in Shaun of the Dead.
If they are the living dead going north would be best it seems. they would freeze solid. if they were like they tend to be now of living creatures that are very violent like left for dead or some of the other ones then an island would be good since they would drown.
-
Exactly, a first floor flat would have been ideal.
-
Second floor. Stair are easier to barricade than walls.
You could drop a couch down a tight stairwell and seal it off fairly well.
-
So guys, let's move on in the discussion. Assuming we all have an ideal shelter in mind, how you guys defend and maintain it? Assuming that you're near enough to an area where zombies frequently or infrequently roam.
-
Depends, are the zombies permanent, or will they eventually die out?
-
Depends, are the zombies permanent, or will they eventually die out?
Well preparing for the worst means preparing for the worst. Let's assume they're violent (halfway between left for dead and resident evil) and permanent.
Scratch that, resident evil is too broad. Generically: they run, they bite, they see one person and immediately attack.
-
Shit, well i'd have a large supply of food and my shelter would be based on it being unreachable by zombies so that they couldn't eventually beat their way in. I guess my goal would be killing as many of them as possible and try to thin the nearby population.
-
I'd just give up. It's probably quite good being a zombie.
-
Shit, well i'd have a large supply of food and my shelter would be based on it being unreachable by zombies so that they couldn't eventually beat their way in. I guess my goal would be killing as many of them as possible and try to thin the nearby population.
So where do you hold up??? DO you stay at home? Go to the local supermarket? Hospital?
-
Shelter:
(http://www.fwi.co.uk/blogs/rural-life/canal_boat.jpg)
in the middle of a reservoir with a gentle current and abundant fish life. A small crew of less than 10.
Weapons and defence:
See previous picture
land transport
(http://www.glasgowguide.co.uk/GG-ORG/imgs0204/Bin%20Lorry.JPG)
Get that cleaned out, disable the crusher and you've got the sturdiest thing on the road short of an army truck with room for supplies and people.
-
Shelter:
(http://www.fwi.co.uk/blogs/rural-life/canal_boat.jpg)
in the middle of a reservoir with a gentle current and abundant fish life. A small crew of less than 10.
Weapons and defence:
See previous picture
land transport
(http://www.glasgowguide.co.uk/GG-ORG/imgs0204/Bin%20Lorry.JPG)
Get that cleaned out, disable the crusher and you've got the sturdiest thing on the road short of an army truck with room for supplies and people.
Wow and i thought i had thought it through.
However, if it happened tomorrow your going to struggle to get a narrow boat on a resevoir. So what would be your back up plan?
-
Water doesn't stop zombies, you won't be able to stay long and that lorry's going to run out of fuel fast, and is from Glasgow. I live not too far from a prison, my school has an armoury and a minibus, and I live down the road from a guy with a motorbike. Roll to the school, load the weapons into the bus and buy my way into Berlinny. I'll be fine for a long time.
-
EDIT: Replace the paddle with a gun though. It's too heavy for one hand, you wouldn't be able to do any real damage.
Guns are loud which just attracts more stenches. Plus, if/when you run out of ammo the gun is worthless.
He should replace the cricket bat with an aluminum baseball bat.
-
Shelter:
in the middle of a reservoir with a gentle current and abundant fish life. A small crew of less than 10.
Weapons and defence:
See previous picture
land transport
Get that cleaned out, disable the crusher and you've got the sturdiest thing on the road short of an army truck with room for supplies and people.
Wow and i thought i had thought it through.
However, if it happened tomorrow your going to struggle to get a narrow boat on a resevoir. So what would be your back up plan?
I live 30-45 minutes from a lake and a river which is chock full of em.
Water may not stop them but they're not going to sneak up on you if they're swimming so you'll be able to get moving and take them out with a barge pole if need be. If it all goes tits up you can just escape at a sedate pace along the river. The River Avon in my case Also they are not going to reach you if they walk along the surface.
The benefit of the bin lorry is a huge storage space, fill it with plenty of fuel an all you really need is a simple means of refueling it whilst it's in motion and you're sorted.
-
Water doesn't stop zombies, you won't be able to stay long and that lorry's going to run out of fuel fast, and is from Glasgow. I live not too far from a prison, my school has an armoury and a minibus, and I live down the road from a guy with a motorbike. Roll to the school, load the weapons into the bus and buy my way into Berlinny. I'll be fine for a long time.
Your school has an armoury?
-
Actually, I have only one real goal if a zombie outbreak occurs. I'd just need a pistol and about six bullets.
Who needs survival when you could have revenge?
-
If you want revenge, why do you need the pistol?
Killing someone with a gun in a world of zombies is mercy. Let them be devoured.
Killing? Do you know how much pain comes from a shot to the knee caps or the hips? Or the elbows? And once the virus takes over they lose all rational thought.
-
Keeping out of major places is a main point of survival.
The more people there are the more zombies there will be.
-
Can't we just outline our doors and windows with blue paint and be totally safe inside a house? Maybe add some rooster blood on the sills for that extra added security?
-
Water doesn't stop zombies, you won't be able to stay long and that lorry's going to run out of fuel fast, and is from Glasgow. I live not too far from a prison, my school has an armoury and a minibus, and I live down the road from a guy with a motorbike. Roll to the school, load the weapons into the bus and buy my way into Berlinny. I'll be fine for a long time.
Your school has an armoury?
Yep. Rifles, mostly, and 20-30 cadet SA80s. They're the same as normal ones, only they don't have a switch to change firing mode. I'll only be using semi-auto anyway, so I won't need to.
I would go to my High School. Parts of it are old, but parts of it are new. I know it's kept in very good maintenance because my parents pay very high property taxes to ensure this. The entrances to the school are all metal doors with both mechanical and magnetic locks. It has it's own emergency generator, it's located at the highest spot in my county, and it's close to a gas station, super market, free clinic, and 3 major highways.
Before I begin to explain what defenses I will add to it, I'll start by telling you what it comes equipped with. We have a fully functional security system that alerts you when any window or door is broken into and surveillance cameras placed inside and outside the school for monitoring activity. Also giant fire doors that block off sections of the school. For facilities, it has a kitchen equipped to feed 1,600 people, a first aide room stocked with basic and non basic medical supplies, fully equipped chemistry and biology labs, workshops and ample wood, and a gym full of blunt objects.
The first thing i would do is barricade and secure the main entrance and a few other entrances that are too big to defend. In particular, a giant glass facade by the cafeteria. For this I would barricade it on the outside, because it is a hill. Most likely the cafeteria tables. I would weld the doors to that area shut as well, because the entrance serves no tactical or practical use besides a giant breakable barrier. Second would be to weld shut all ground level windows and barricade them using wood or some sturdy material, maybe desks. After that you need to barricade area's around the school to plan for escape. The closest entrance is about 15-20 feet from the parking lot. And close to the workshop. A few school buses should work as escape vehicles.
In terms of weapons, there is a national guard depot located about a mile away from the school. In there we should be able to find not only weapons, but heavily armored military vehicles for excursions to supplies. There is also a bass pro shop within ten minutes of the school and raiding that store could be the most valuable thing I could ever do. Just google their catalog and you'll shit yourself.
With the supplies around me and the facilities I have, I estimate that with a group of capable people I could survive in that school for as long as we can keep the generator running.
A few problems:
-There are a LOT of windows near ground level, too many, it WILL be a problem.
-The generator is used for emergency lighting, and I assume that it can't adequately power the entire school, but it should be able to power different areas of the school at different times, and there is a chance that the power will running for a long time before we need it.
-It's big. If I don't have enough people, I can't defend it.
-The area I live in is fairly populated, the chances of me being the first to raid the depot or the pro shop is slim.
A few other things I've thought of before but now I can't point out. Basically, that's how I'll do it.
Magnetic locks and the security system will fail, and the rest depends on what type of generator you have. Your cafeteria will be largely useless, as schools generally go through everything too fast for tinned food to be worthwhile, and only the tinned section of the supermarket will survive. Barricades are useless, if they can break through at all they will do so fast. Expect large crowds to surround you soon, making all excursions impossible. Every need must be contained within an impenetrable boundary. Try an old-school prison.
-
Magnetic locks and the security system will fail, and the rest depends on what type of generator you have. Your cafeteria will be largely useless, as schools generally go through everything too fast for tinned food to be worthwhile, and only the tinned section of the supermarket will survive. Barricades are useless, if they can break through at all they will do so fast. Expect large crowds to surround you soon, making all excursions impossible. Every need must be contained within an impenetrable boundary. Try an old-school prison.
The chances of electricity going out immediately is very slim. I don't know what specifically is the source of my schools power is, but I give it a few weeks at least. As for food, the cafeteria has enough food to feed 1,600 people per day for a week. 100 people will be too many, so I'm sure the food will last for a while.
As for the crowds, I'm sure a school bus will be sufficient to mow down the crowds. The front of the school is a large parking lot, it would be sport cutting down those zombies.
-
Magnetic locks and the security system will fail, and the rest depends on what type of generator you have. Your cafeteria will be largely useless, as schools generally go through everything too fast for tinned food to be worthwhile, and only the tinned section of the supermarket will survive. Barricades are useless, if they can break through at all they will do so fast. Expect large crowds to surround you soon, making all excursions impossible. Every need must be contained within an impenetrable boundary. Try an old-school prison.
The chances of electricity going out immediately is very slim. I don't know what specifically is the source of my schools power is, but I give it a few weeks at least. As for food, the cafeteria has enough food to feed 1,600 people per day for a week. 100 people will be too many, so I'm sure the food will last for a while.
As for the crowds, I'm sure a school bus will be sufficient to mow down the crowds. The front of the school is a large parking lot, it would be sport cutting down those zombies.
No, the electricity will die once there is nobody manning the power stations, after that everything GD said will happen. I give the power a week tops. As for the food for 1600 kids, most of it will be fresh or frozen stuff I'd imagine, ie perishable.
-
Magnetic locks and the security system will fail, and the rest depends on what type of generator you have. Your cafeteria will be largely useless, as schools generally go through everything too fast for tinned food to be worthwhile, and only the tinned section of the supermarket will survive. Barricades are useless, if they can break through at all they will do so fast. Expect large crowds to surround you soon, making all excursions impossible. Every need must be contained within an impenetrable boundary. Try an old-school prison.
The chances of electricity going out immediately is very slim. I don't know what specifically is the source of my schools power is, but I give it a few weeks at least. As for food, the cafeteria has enough food to feed 1,600 people per day for a week. 100 people will be too many, so I'm sure the food will last for a while.
As for the crowds, I'm sure a school bus will be sufficient to mow down the crowds. The front of the school is a large parking lot, it would be sport cutting down those zombies.
The power won't go out immediately, but we're talking long term here. The cafeteria is unlikely to store much, if any tinned food, so a lot of it will go stale incredibly quickly after the power goes. A school bus will certainly not be able to go through a crowd, you underestimate the weight of a human body and overestimate the power of a school bus.
-
Magnetic locks and the security system will fail, and the rest depends on what type of generator you have. Your cafeteria will be largely useless, as schools generally go through everything too fast for tinned food to be worthwhile, and only the tinned section of the supermarket will survive. Barricades are useless, if they can break through at all they will do so fast. Expect large crowds to surround you soon, making all excursions impossible. Every need must be contained within an impenetrable boundary. Try an old-school prison.
The chances of electricity going out immediately is very slim. I don't know what specifically is the source of my schools power is, but I give it a few weeks at least. As for food, the cafeteria has enough food to feed 1,600 people per day for a week. 100 people will be too many, so I'm sure the food will last for a while.
As for the crowds, I'm sure a school bus will be sufficient to mow down the crowds. The front of the school is a large parking lot, it would be sport cutting down those zombies.
The power won't go out immediately, but we're talking long term here. The cafeteria is unlikely to store much, if any tinned food, so a lot of it will go stale incredibly quickly after the power goes. A school bus will certainly not be able to go through a crowd, you underestimate the weight of a human body and overestimate the power of a school bus.
I've seen a school bus flatten the front end of a jeep backing up slowly with no damage to the bus. Those thing are solid steel and a huge engine. They would roll right over almost any crowd.
-
Yeah, but bodies are going to fly through the windscreen en masse, and they're going to still be alive-ish.
-
Jeez, guys. My idea is to conserve at least some of our resources to hire a zombie consultant. An interview committee should be chosen NOW before you guys start mowing down ech other. I suggest Moonlit to head said committee. Stay calm until the interview process runs its course.
-
Yeah, but bodies are going to fly through the windscreen en masse, and they're going to still be alive-ish.
Idk about in europe, but in america the windshield is higher up than my head. Going at a speed of about 30 mph should avoid that.
-
No, the electricity will die once there is nobody manning the power stations, after that everything GD said will happen. I give the power a week tops. As for the food for 1600 kids, most of it will be fresh or frozen stuff I'd imagine, ie perishable.
Assuming the power goes out. Also you pointed out another problem. My food is perishable, but again, this is only if the power goes out.
Apparently my school is powered by a nuclear power plant. I'd give that a month before it's shut down by safety features.
But that generator still powers all the lights and ventilation. If we take down some lights and put the energy into the locks and security system, it should work. The key is permanently sealing a lot of the doors. The school has blow torches, so welding a LOT of the entrances shut is a real possibility. As for concentrating my necessities, I will indeed do this.
-
Guns are loud which just attracts more stenches. Plus, if/when you run out of ammo the gun is worthless.
Yep. A silencer is your friend in a zombie outbreak.
-
No, the electricity will die once there is nobody manning the power stations, after that everything GD said will happen. I give the power a week tops. As for the food for 1600 kids, most of it will be fresh or frozen stuff I'd imagine, ie perishable.
Assuming the power goes out. Also you pointed out another problem. My food is perishable, but again, this is only if the power goes out.
Apparently my school is powered by a nuclear power plant. I'd give that a month before it's shut down by safety features.
But that generator still powers all the lights and ventilation. If we take down some lights and put the energy into the locks and security system, it should work. The key is permanently sealing a lot of the doors. The school has blow torches, so welding a LOT of the entrances shut is a real possibility. As for concentrating my necessities, I will indeed do this.
A month? What is it, entirely automated and zombie-proof and directly over an also automated and zombie-proof uranium mine?
Yeah, but bodies are going to fly through the windscreen en masse, and they're going to still be alive-ish.
Idk about in europe, but in america the windshield is higher up than my head. Going at a speed of about 30 mph should avoid that.
Try maintaining a steady 30 through a horde of bodies.
Guns are loud which just attracts more stenches. Plus, if/when you run out of ammo the gun is worthless.
Yep. A silencer is your friend in a zombie outbreak.
Or a crossbow.
-
Nuclear power plants are HIGHLY automated. 95% of the staff are just maintenance staff. Actual nuclear technicians are rarely needed.
Without these people, I give the plant a month before it drops below whatever safety standard it has in its computer system and shuts down.
And the zombies wandering around, falling into things and smashing shit up?
-
thats great if you're powered by nukes or a wind turbine but most power plants will die without fuel being shoveled into them.
And what happens after that month? all your lovely food is gone.
-
A school powered by a nuclear reactor with an armoury. Clearly we all need to get there!!!
-
A school powered by a nuclear reactor with an armoury. Clearly we all need to get there!!!
His school is powered by the nuclear reactor, mine has the armoury. Both are largely indefensible.
-
A school powered by a nuclear reactor with an armoury. Clearly we all need to get there!!!
His school is powered by the nuclear reactor, mine has the armoury. Both are largely indefensible.
Sorry, got confused. We were lucky to have a playground
-
Actually, mine is quite defensible. No ground floor windows, narrow stairs and plenty of windows above leading onto a flat rooftop area over the ground floor which would be excellent for killing.
-
Well if it had it's own personal reactor, that would be something...
And I disagree that my school is indefensible. Even the rooms with low windows can just be locked and welded/barricaded shut. There are 2 floors, the second floor has plenty of room, and nicer rooms.
EDIT: So why would you not stay there? Schools are one of the best options for a shelter. The only downside is the size. With enough people this can be managed.
-
Actually, mine is quite defensible. No ground floor windows, narrow stairs and plenty of windows above leading onto a flat rooftop area over the ground floor which would be excellent for killing.
The fewer ground floor entry points the better
-
There's two doors and no windows, both doors are hefty storm-door style ones with big lockers nearby for blockades. There's also cables of some description so getting to the other buildings is simply a matter of shimmying along them. (We'd wait until the power was out of course, for safety reasons)
-
Are the wires capable of supporting a person?
-
Honestly if I needed more power I could just go to that bass pro shop.
They have generators I believe, and if transportation is a problem
A couple of these:
(http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060502/060502_militaryTrucks_hmed_12p.hmedium.jpg)
Supported by a couple of these:
(http://www.cyberbrinedreams.com/version4/images/210.jpg)
can get the job done.
All within the national gaurd depot less than a mile away from my school.
-
Honestly if I needed more power I could just go to that bass pro shop.
They have generators I believe, and if transportation is a problem
A couple of these:
(http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060502/060502_militaryTrucks_hmed_12p.hmedium.jpg)
Supported by a couple of these:
(http://www.cyberbrinedreams.com/version4/images/210.jpg)
can get the job done.
All within the national gaurd depot less than a mile away from my school.
And over here in Blighty (barring certain areas of Birmingham) we dont these sort of weapons. Basically we will be fighting them of with a cricket bat and a 9 iron.
-
England will die quickly due to it's gun laws.
Australia sparse population will protect them, but their laws are so strict you can't even get a really strong laser pointer. They will die too.
-
Are the wires capable of supporting a person?
I hope so. I won't really need to use them, it's more of an on-the-off-chance-there's-another-survivor-somewhere-else-in-my-school thing.
England will die quickly due to it's gun laws.
Australia sparse population will protect them, but their laws are so strict you can't even get a really strong laser pointer. They will die too.
Guns are still easy to come by, and I think these laws will relax somewhat in the event of a ZOMBIE FUCKING APOCALYPSE.
-
Relaxed laws don't make a gun and ammo appear one room away from you.
It's not like you're going to have a lot of time to go shopping after the zombie outbreak starts, and the british government will probably tell everyone to stay indoors so they can "take care of it" leading to people sitting in poorly defended homes.
I live 2 miles away from what is considered "Appalachia" meaning it is such a redneck sparsely populated area that living there automatically qualifies you for government scholarships. There are houses miles from anyone with gun collections that would make a marine envious.
-
Britain does have one advantage over the Americans when it comes to survival...
(http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/scot_fan.jpg)
when 10,000 pissed Glaswegians storm into the horde the ripped and torn body parts aren't going to be waving Scottish flags...
As an Englishman I'll be as dead as the zombies of course... better start practicing my accent.
-
Meh. I have rednecks. Their insane, alcoholics, and have shot more things than is probably even remotely close to legal.
-
>:( I haver NEVER shot up anything in Ohio!
-
>:( I haver NEVER shot up anything in Ohio!
;D
And I have never shot up anything in georgia.
-
Relaxed laws don't make a gun and ammo appear one room away from you.
It's not like you're going to have a lot of time to go shopping after the zombie outbreak starts, and the british government will probably tell everyone to stay indoors so they can "take care of it" leading to people sitting in poorly defended homes.
I live 2 miles away from what is considered "Appalachia" meaning it is such a redneck sparsely populated area that living there automatically qualifies you for government scholarships. There are houses miles from anyone with gun collections that would make a marine envious.
You forget, I'm Scottish. See below:
Britain does have one advantage over the Americans when it comes to survival...
(http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/scot_fan.jpg)
when 10,000 pissed Glaswegians storm into the horde the ripped and torn body parts aren't going to be waving Scottish flags...
As an Englishman I'll be as dead as the zombies of course... better start practicing my accent.
The Tartan Army actually numbers closer to 40000, who feel less pain than the zombies and are usually too drunk to notice how dead they are. Average Tartan Warrior:
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1096/774635219_10297827d1_o.jpg)
-
That is fucking awesome. I'm pretty sure my dad would be one of them if we weren't in America. He's short, and stocky, and angry as hell.
-
I live in utah. I'm screwed. I'm in all likelihood going to be devoured by closet homosexuals.
-
I live in utah. I'm screwed. I'm in all likelihood going to be devoured by closet homosexuals.
Yeah, zombies. That's what we're talking about.
-
If they are truly undead then they would be at air temperature. defend the position as there joints freeze. drive a school bus up north at around 50 miles an hour. stop and pick up some shot guns for the way. go to a military base in Alaska.
if they are not undead and the virus just makes them crazy I would go onto lake superior. I would go to Isle Royale. get some basic supplies before hand. a gun. a bow and arrow. fishing stuff. once winter hits it should kill all the zombies. then I can go back to land.
-
If they are truly undead then they would be at air temperature. defend the position as there joints freeze. drive a school bus up north at around 50 miles an hour. stop and pick up some shot guns for the way. go to a military base in Alaska.
if they are not undead and the virus just makes them crazy I would go onto lake superior. I would go to Isle Royale. get some basic supplies before hand. a gun. a bow and arrow. fishing stuff. once winter hits it should kill all the zombies. then I can go back to land.
You obviously haven't seen Dead Snow.
-
America won't survive because we have guns. I would say that about 1/3 to 1/2 of our population will be gone within a matter of days after the initial outbreak in the US. I think I read somewhere that about 60% of our population lives in urban areas. Anyone in a city is basically screwed. I live in between Baltimore and Washington DC. I've often thought about getting the hell out of here if I can't get the school and the supplies that I listed. I mean I'm a good 20-30 miles away from both of them, but god damn, if 5 million zombies started migrating there is no way in fuck I'm staying here.
That's really my biggest concern. The only thing I can think about doing is actually making progress of pushing back the horde and creating a fence or some sort of perimeter. All I need is a home depot, but I highly doubt that a fence would hold them back for long. And increasing the area that I need to protect increases the amount of people which means more water, food, and power to keep them comfortable and alive.
-
You actually consider moving due to possible zombie risks?
-
You actually consider moving due to possible zombie risks?
If we all did that then all the cities would be empty!
-
To be honest, once you've got your initial cordon set up and a safe retreatpoint, in the early days you'd be better going zombie-hunting. picking off small groups before they can form a horde. In a war of attrition the zombies have the upper hand.
-
To be honest, once you've got your initial cordon set up and a safe retreatpoint, in the early days you'd be better going zombie-hunting. picking off small groups before they can form a horde. In a war of attrition the zombies have the upper hand.
I think the bodies also need to be disposed of in different places. If you leave a pile of dead bodies at the end of your street, its going to attract attention.
-
To be honest, once you've got your initial cordon set up and a safe retreatpoint, in the early days you'd be better going zombie-hunting. picking off small groups before they can form a horde. In a war of attrition the zombies have the upper hand.
True, but that's quite different then actually CLEARING and area of zombies, and fencing it off. In the early days I would also be picking up survivors and screening them for usefulness.
Also, yes Raist I have. But I'm going to college soon so it's not like that's a realistic possibility for me.
-
To be honest, once you've got your initial cordon set up and a safe retreatpoint, in the early days you'd be better going zombie-hunting. picking off small groups before they can form a horde. In a war of attrition the zombies have the upper hand.
I think the bodies also need to be disposed of in different places. If you leave a pile of dead bodies at the end of your street, its going to attract attention.
From refugees and bandits, maybe.
-
Oh bandits will find you, don't even pretend they won't.
-
Oh bandits will find you, don't even pretend they won't.
Not necessarily.
-
I think most people would see a bunch of dead zombies and see you as an ally. What better strategy than setting up your position near someone else's? It would mean that the thinning of the local zombie population would be mutually beneficial.
And with a decimated human population, what would you steal? Everything would be laying around in abundance.
-
I think most people would see a bunch of dead zombies and see you as an ally. What better strategy than setting up your position near someone else's? It would mean that the thinning of the local zombie population would be mutually beneficial.
And with a decimated human population, what would you steal? Everything would be laying around in abundance.
many things we take for granted would no longer be available, or function.
-
No, bandits will find you, eventually.
What Raist say's is true. It doesn't matter what you do with the bodies, because with or without them, people will find you. So it's better to take the chance of signaling another capable group at the risk of signaling to bandits that you have supplies. The best ally to have is one that you don't need to feed or provide shelter for, only help them with attacks and mutually search for supplies.
-
I think most people would see a bunch of dead zombies and see you as an ally. What better strategy than setting up your position near someone else's? It would mean that the thinning of the local zombie population would be mutually beneficial.
And with a decimated human population, what would you steal? Everything would be laying around in abundance.
many things we take for granted would no longer be available, or function.
Such as? If something can go bad, a person would have no way of keeping it from going bad, and they couldn't steal it from you, and if something keeps well it'd be sitting in the stores where it is sold.
-
I think most people would see a bunch of dead zombies and see you as an ally. What better strategy than setting up your position near someone else's? It would mean that the thinning of the local zombie population would be mutually beneficial.
And with a decimated human population, what would you steal? Everything would be laying around in abundance.
many things we take for granted would no longer be available, or function.
Such as? If something can go bad, a person would have no way of keeping it from going bad, and they couldn't steal it from you, and if something keeps well it'd be sitting in the stores where it is sold.
utilities would come to mind. if you get seriously injured would be able to help you.
-
No, bandits will find you, eventually.
What Raist say's is true. It doesn't matter what you do with the bodies, because with or without them, people will find you. So it's better to take the chance of signaling another capable group at the risk of signaling to bandits that you have supplies. The best ally to have is one that you don't need to feed or provide shelter for, only help them with attacks and mutually search for supplies.
Can I again ask, why are there bandits? Things are pretty much lying where humanity left them. Canned food will be laying around. Bottled water. The few things that would be fought for, clean water, etc. tend to be fixed and unlimited and it would be better to share them.
Rape may occur. Perhaps even sex slavery. I have a feeling women would fall to the level of property again.
-
I think most people would see a bunch of dead zombies and see you as an ally. What better strategy than setting up your position near someone else's? It would mean that the thinning of the local zombie population would be mutually beneficial.
And with a decimated human population, what would you steal? Everything would be laying around in abundance.
many things we take for granted would no longer be available, or function.
Such as? If something can go bad, a person would have no way of keeping it from going bad, and they couldn't steal it from you, and if something keeps well it'd be sitting in the stores where it is sold.
utilities would come to mind. if you get seriously injured would be able to help you.
Utilities would be GONE. Except for a generator which could be found anywhere, and the gas to run it would also be found everywhere. Wells would supply an infinite source of water, but you can't steal them, therefore someone with a well would obviously share it, gaining no advantage keeping it to themselves.
-
There are bandits because some things WILL be in high priority. Not water, but food, medicine, guns, gasoline, ammunition, equipment. Some douchebags will figure that it's easier to steal from people than to risk going into areas with zombies.
Of course it's better to share, but some people are greedy. I'd share water, but not food. I'd share ammunition, but not guns. Hell I'd share bandaids but not running alcohol. Some things will be more scarce, and some things won't.
-
There are bandits because some things WILL be in high priority. Not water, but food, medicine, guns, gasoline, ammunition, equipment. Some douchebags will figure that it's easier to steal from people than to risk going into areas with zombies.
Of course it's better to share, but some people are greedy. I'd share water, but not food. I'd share ammunition, but not guns. Hell I'd share bandaids but not running alcohol. Some things will be more scarce, and some things won't.
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
Exactly, most people will die. If most people were still alive the infrastructure wouldn't collapse. If 9/10 of the population was still alive a united resistance would form. We could destroy the dead, build walled cities. Heck the military would roll through with tanks and just kill zombies by running them over.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
Exactly, most people will die. If most people were still alive the infrastructure wouldn't collapse. If 9/10 of the population was still alive a united resistance would form. We could destroy the dead, build walled cities. Heck the military would roll through with tanks and just kill zombies by running them over.
You have a very rosy view of human nature.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
Exactly, most people will die. If most people were still alive the infrastructure wouldn't collapse. If 9/10 of the population was still alive a united resistance would form. We could destroy the dead, build walled cities. Heck the military would roll through with tanks and just kill zombies by running them over.
You have a very rosy view of human nature.
Not at all. I just know we base all of our actions on risk reward. When shit is everywhere you aren't going to go burgle someone that has killed piles of zombies. That would be stupid. Everything he has that you could want you could get without facing a crazed gunman. People could stockpile guns and ammo, but another person shooting those guns beside you is infinitely more valuable than what you could trade them for. Scared people flock together, it is human nature.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
Exactly, most people will die. If most people were still alive the infrastructure wouldn't collapse. If 9/10 of the population was still alive a united resistance would form. We could destroy the dead, build walled cities. Heck the military would roll through with tanks and just kill zombies by running them over.
You have a very rosy view of human nature.
Not at all. I just know we base all of our actions on risk reward. When shit is everywhere you aren't going to go burgle someone that has killed piles of zombies. That would be stupid. Everything he has that you could want you could get without facing a crazed gunman. People could stockpile guns and ammo, but another person shooting those guns beside you is infinitely more valuable than what you could trade them for. Scared people flock together, it is human nature.
The loss of societal constraints makes for a lot of crazy fuckers.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
Exactly, most people will die. If most people were still alive the infrastructure wouldn't collapse. If 9/10 of the population was still alive a united resistance would form. We could destroy the dead, build walled cities. Heck the military would roll through with tanks and just kill zombies by running them over.
You have a very rosy view of human nature.
Not at all. I just know we base all of our actions on risk reward. When shit is everywhere you aren't going to go burgle someone that has killed piles of zombies. That would be stupid. Everything he has that you could want you could get without facing a crazed gunman. People could stockpile guns and ammo, but another person shooting those guns beside you is infinitely more valuable than what you could trade them for. Scared people flock together, it is human nature.
The loss of societal constraints makes for a lot of crazy fuckers.
Crazy but still logical.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
Exactly, most people will die. If most people were still alive the infrastructure wouldn't collapse. If 9/10 of the population was still alive a united resistance would form. We could destroy the dead, build walled cities. Heck the military would roll through with tanks and just kill zombies by running them over.
You have a very rosy view of human nature.
Not at all. I just know we base all of our actions on risk reward. When shit is everywhere you aren't going to go burgle someone that has killed piles of zombies. That would be stupid. Everything he has that you could want you could get without facing a crazed gunman. People could stockpile guns and ammo, but another person shooting those guns beside you is infinitely more valuable than what you could trade them for. Scared people flock together, it is human nature.
The loss of societal constraints makes for a lot of crazy fuckers.
Crazy but still logical.
It's a twisted logic, tainted by total disregard for morality and humanity.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
Exactly, most people will die. If most people were still alive the infrastructure wouldn't collapse. If 9/10 of the population was still alive a united resistance would form. We could destroy the dead, build walled cities. Heck the military would roll through with tanks and just kill zombies by running them over.
You have a very rosy view of human nature.
Not at all. I just know we base all of our actions on risk reward. When shit is everywhere you aren't going to go burgle someone that has killed piles of zombies. That would be stupid. Everything he has that you could want you could get without facing a crazed gunman. People could stockpile guns and ammo, but another person shooting those guns beside you is infinitely more valuable than what you could trade them for. Scared people flock together, it is human nature.
The loss of societal constraints makes for a lot of crazy fuckers.
Crazy but still logical.
It's a twisted logic, tainted by total disregard for morality and humanity.
So? Neither of those things lead to people killing someone else for something readily available when that person has shown themselves capable of massive amounts of self defense. People will still interact like people, just without laws. We've done it for hundreds of thousands of years, and I'll bet a lot our instincts didn't magically disappear.
-
There will be a fair share of all of those things. Think about it, the population will be decimated, yet the only things that disappear are foods with very short shelf lifes.
Dude. How long have you been on this site. 9/10 noobs on this site would become raiders because they're shit stupid. Thank god 9/10 of the noobs will die.
Exactly, most people will die. If most people were still alive the infrastructure wouldn't collapse. If 9/10 of the population was still alive a united resistance would form. We could destroy the dead, build walled cities. Heck the military would roll through with tanks and just kill zombies by running them over.
You have a very rosy view of human nature.
Not at all. I just know we base all of our actions on risk reward. When shit is everywhere you aren't going to go burgle someone that has killed piles of zombies. That would be stupid. Everything he has that you could want you could get without facing a crazed gunman. People could stockpile guns and ammo, but another person shooting those guns beside you is infinitely more valuable than what you could trade them for. Scared people flock together, it is human nature.
The loss of societal constraints makes for a lot of crazy fuckers.
Crazy but still logical.
It's a twisted logic, tainted by total disregard for morality and humanity.
So? Neither of those things lead to people killing someone else for something readily available when that person has shown themselves capable of massive amounts of self defense. People will still interact like people, just without laws. We've done it for hundreds of thousands of years, and I'll bet a lot our instincts didn't magically disappear.
What about a few weeks later, when the readily available food/equipment has been looted?
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
-
In 5-10 years, non perishables will become perishables. Canned foods do not last forever. Only vacuum sealed foods and things that do not go stale will last forever.
So there WILL be a shortage of food, eventually. However, there will be no shortage or resources to create new food. In fact, with the stuff at my school, I bet I could probably make just about anything I wanted, besides meats. Hydroponics would be a great idea for growing foods. I know the lab at my school has ample materials to build it, plus a library full of resources detailing how it would work. Just another benefit of my high school as a safehouse from zombies.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
-
Ok let's assume that 95% of the population is gone.
300,000,000 people are left.
That spread over 148,940,000 km of land. (Surface area of the earth [flat or round]).
That's about 2 people per square mile. I think raist is right at this point. The chances of bandits are slimmer than I thought. HOWEVER there is still a chance.
-
THIS is a STUDY!? What has the world come to?
-
THIS is a STUDY!? What has the world come to?
Sir, this is a serious debate of a serious situation. If you do not prepare for the uprising, no one can help you.
-
THIS is a STUDY!? What has the world come to?
Sir, this is a serious debate of a serious situation. If you do not prepare for the uprising, no one can help you.
Yeah, the problem with a "study" relating to zombies is that with zombies being fiction and all there are too many variables. There can't be any agreed upon description of zombies and how they would act or the things they would do because they don't really exist. Thus any "study" is based purely on guessing.
-
You know in 1980 AIDS didn't exist. Well shit, now it does. So shh.
-
You know in 1980 AIDS didn't exist. Well shit, now it does. So shh.
Yeah, and in 1980 someone couldn't have conducted a "study" about what some fictional STD called "aids" would be like and how it would act.
-
You know in 1980 AIDS didn't exist. Well shit, now it does. So shh.
... Yes it did. It came around before the middle of this century.
-
omg I was right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Pathophysiology)
OK but that's besides the point. Things can exist in the future that don't exist now. Back to the discussion.
-
omg I was right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Pathophysiology)
OK but that's besides the point. Things can exist in the future that don't exist now. Back to the discussion.
I'm not denying that, but I am saying that we can't make assumptions about how things that don't exist and have never existed would be. Because if they've never existed, as it stands, they're just fiction.
-
Actually I believe we can. If zombies came, they would be zombies as defined. If they were not zombies, then they aren't zombies. We're preparing for what is defined as zombeis.
-
Actually I believe we can. If zombies came, they would be zombies as defined. If they were not zombies, then they aren't zombies. We're preparing for what is defined as zombeis.
But there's no set definition as to what constitutes a zombie. Authors freely modify what exactly a zombie is to suit their story telling needs.
-
All zombies have similar properties. They're undead. They use their brains for basic motor functions, but nothing else matters. They desperately try to feed themselves on humans. Once a human is bit, it has the disease. We're preparing for THAT.
-
All zombies have similar properties. They're undead. They use their brains for basic motor functions, but nothing else matters. They desperately try to feed themselves on humans. Once a human is bit, it has the disease. We're preparing for THAT.
Well, fine. But it still doesn't seem like enough information to conduct a study. There are still plenty of variables.
-
That seems pretty good to go on to me.
-
my guess is it is just like studying a flow of a virus. except it can infect the dead too
-
Some Zombie lore there is no "disease" (especially the original Romero lore). There's just some unknown phenomena that brings the dead back to life. Being bitten just accelerates the dying part.
-
omg I was right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Pathophysiology)
OK but that's besides the point. Things can exist in the future that don't exist now. Back to the discussion.
1981 was when the first paper was written on it. After it had burned its way up the african coast and then made it's way to america then established itself in the homosexual community. So no.
-
AIDS
SAID
That's all I can think of. :-\
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
-
So is a disease or a naturally occurring phenomana?
-
A disease is the only feasible possibility.
-
1981 was when the first paper was written on it. After it had burned its way up the african coast and then made it's way to america then established itself in the homosexual community. So no.
Yes well there are a lot of diseases that haven't been discovered. To me that means they don't exist, just like all the things that are around today that we didn't know about 5 years ago.
For all we know, the disease is already here, it's just having trouble spreading through the rainforests of deep west brazil.
-
A disease is the only feasible possibility.
So from this, i take it can only be passed by an exchange of fluids? Or, would we all have it and it only activates once we die?
-
I'm sure it's through an exchange of fluids. Meaning the only feasible way is by getting bit, or getting zombie blood in an open wound, or having sex with a zombie.
So yeah, getting bit is the most likely way of getting it.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
Oh really? You don't think it would be covered up and people would ignore it until it was on their doorstep? The government wouldn't release that sort of information, they wouldn't want the panic, and when people were told the information they would believe it would be contained.
It is hard to get people to act without them getting first hand experience with something. Society doesn't break down until the population starts dropping dramatically. Even during the bombing of london business continued.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
Oh really? You don't think it would be covered up and people would ignore it until it was on their doorstep? The government wouldn't release that sort of information, they wouldn't want the panic, and when people were told the information they would believe it would be contained.
It is hard to get people to act without them getting first hand experience with something. Society doesn't break down until the population starts dropping dramatically. Even during the bombing of london business continued.
There's only so long a government can cover things like that up, by the time entire nations are collapsing and small outbreaks are occurring closer to home people will panic, I assure you. Business continued in London because there was hope of victory.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
Oh really? You don't think it would be covered up and people would ignore it until it was on their doorstep? The government wouldn't release that sort of information, they wouldn't want the panic, and when people were told the information they would believe it would be contained.
It is hard to get people to act without them getting first hand experience with something. Society doesn't break down until the population starts dropping dramatically. Even during the bombing of london business continued.
There's only so long a government can cover things like that up, by the time entire nations are collapsing and small outbreaks are occurring closer to home people will panic, I assure you. Business continued in London because there was hope of victory.
So an army of dead is forming, and you think people would grab things and take off? I'm pretty sure people would be forming groups. I'd be setting up a shelter with my neighbors, and collecting as much ammo as possible. If there was that much advanced warning I'm sure most people would be digging bunkers, and surrounding themselves with barbed wire. At this point the zombies wouldn't really stand a chance of spreading.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
Oh really? You don't think it would be covered up and people would ignore it until it was on their doorstep? The government wouldn't release that sort of information, they wouldn't want the panic, and when people were told the information they would believe it would be contained.
It is hard to get people to act without them getting first hand experience with something. Society doesn't break down until the population starts dropping dramatically. Even during the bombing of london business continued.
There's only so long a government can cover things like that up, by the time entire nations are collapsing and small outbreaks are occurring closer to home people will panic, I assure you. Business continued in London because there was hope of victory.
So an army of dead is forming, and you think people would grab things and take off? I'm pretty sure people would be forming groups. I'd be setting up a shelter with my neighbors, and collecting as much ammo as possible. If there was that much advanced warning I'm sure most people would be digging bunkers, and surrounding themselves with barbed wire. At this point the zombies wouldn't really stand a chance of spreading.
People would shit bricks and run for the countryside, knowing only that city=death. I'm pretty sure that people who'd set up for a siege would be few, and those who surrounded themselves with barbed wire would be even fewer, and grow fewer by the hour because pain doesn't slow them.
-
Raist is right General Douchebag. (Wow that sounded like an insult...) People will be like 'oh lord zombies!!' but they wouldn't take the threat seriously. The government will hit hard and fast, but at the same time tell citizens that everything was under control and contained. If ONE zombie got into a city the size of...Baltimore which has like 500,000 people, it would take about a day to recognize it as a zombie, but only hours for the disease to spread to half of the population of that city. The government wouldn't release any information about what they look like or how they act, only that there is a problem. Journalists will probably be refused entrance to the 'front lines' on the assumption that it is 'extremely dangerous', while at the same time making sure they can't figure out what the hell is going on.
As soon as I know it's zombies, I'm calling people I know and planning to set up shop at the school.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
Oh really? You don't think it would be covered up and people would ignore it until it was on their doorstep? The government wouldn't release that sort of information, they wouldn't want the panic, and when people were told the information they would believe it would be contained.
It is hard to get people to act without them getting first hand experience with something. Society doesn't break down until the population starts dropping dramatically. Even during the bombing of london business continued.
There's only so long a government can cover things like that up, by the time entire nations are collapsing and small outbreaks are occurring closer to home people will panic, I assure you. Business continued in London because there was hope of victory.
So an army of dead is forming, and you think people would grab things and take off? I'm pretty sure people would be forming groups. I'd be setting up a shelter with my neighbors, and collecting as much ammo as possible. If there was that much advanced warning I'm sure most people would be digging bunkers, and surrounding themselves with barbed wire. At this point the zombies wouldn't really stand a chance of spreading.
People would shit bricks and run for the countryside, knowing only that city=death. I'm pretty sure that people who'd set up for a siege would be few, and those who surrounded themselves with barbed wire would be even fewer, and grow fewer by the hour because pain doesn't slow them.
Run where? People don't simply run. It's not in our nature. We may wander a little, but people always tend to have a destination set in their head. At most people would relocate, but after that defense would be the foremost thing on people's minds.
-
(http://i28.tinypic.com/xpbmvo.jpg)
Wait, you guys! Seriously. You're forgetting to factor in the Umbrella Corporation! The Redfields should be contacted and an elite task force assembled. The possible involvement of Wesker should be ascertained as well.
-
I thought asian people couldn't grow facial hair.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
Oh really? You don't think it would be covered up and people would ignore it until it was on their doorstep? The government wouldn't release that sort of information, they wouldn't want the panic, and when people were told the information they would believe it would be contained.
It is hard to get people to act without them getting first hand experience with something. Society doesn't break down until the population starts dropping dramatically. Even during the bombing of london business continued.
There's only so long a government can cover things like that up, by the time entire nations are collapsing and small outbreaks are occurring closer to home people will panic, I assure you. Business continued in London because there was hope of victory.
So an army of dead is forming, and you think people would grab things and take off? I'm pretty sure people would be forming groups. I'd be setting up a shelter with my neighbors, and collecting as much ammo as possible. If there was that much advanced warning I'm sure most people would be digging bunkers, and surrounding themselves with barbed wire. At this point the zombies wouldn't really stand a chance of spreading.
People would shit bricks and run for the countryside, knowing only that city=death. I'm pretty sure that people who'd set up for a siege would be few, and those who surrounded themselves with barbed wire would be even fewer, and grow fewer by the hour because pain doesn't slow them.
Run where? People don't simply run. It's not in our nature. We may wander a little, but people always tend to have a destination set in their head. At most people would relocate, but after that defense would be the foremost thing on people's minds.
And how will they intend to survive the journey?
-
I'm sure it's through an exchange of fluids. Meaning the only feasible way is by getting bit, or getting zombie blood in an open wound, or having sex with a zombie.
So yeah, getting bit is the most likely way of getting it.
So how do you get it if you just die then??
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
Oh really? You don't think it would be covered up and people would ignore it until it was on their doorstep? The government wouldn't release that sort of information, they wouldn't want the panic, and when people were told the information they would believe it would be contained.
It is hard to get people to act without them getting first hand experience with something. Society doesn't break down until the population starts dropping dramatically. Even during the bombing of london business continued.
There's only so long a government can cover things like that up, by the time entire nations are collapsing and small outbreaks are occurring closer to home people will panic, I assure you. Business continued in London because there was hope of victory.
So an army of dead is forming, and you think people would grab things and take off? I'm pretty sure people would be forming groups. I'd be setting up a shelter with my neighbors, and collecting as much ammo as possible. If there was that much advanced warning I'm sure most people would be digging bunkers, and surrounding themselves with barbed wire. At this point the zombies wouldn't really stand a chance of spreading.
People would shit bricks and run for the countryside, knowing only that city=death. I'm pretty sure that people who'd set up for a siege would be few, and those who surrounded themselves with barbed wire would be even fewer, and grow fewer by the hour because pain doesn't slow them.
Run where? People don't simply run. It's not in our nature. We may wander a little, but people always tend to have a destination set in their head. At most people would relocate, but after that defense would be the foremost thing on people's minds.
And how will they intend to survive the journey?
We were assuming only a small outbreak of zombies at this point. You can't jump back and forth. If the outbreak is already large than we wouldn't be at this situation. So I'll say moving in a car along major highways should allow them to keep moving without stopping. Meaning the FEW zombies they ran into wouldn't even be able to get near their car by the time they went by, let alone kill them.
-
If a zombie outbreak occurs, people will basically break down into one of the following:
-Deniers who'll follow the official government line and just lock their doors and windows
-Those who grab handfuls of stuff and just flee, heading North or to places they think they'll be safe
-Those who become militias and form little defended villages/buildings.
-Loners who keep moving, taking what they need through force. Possibly forming roving gangs.
-Little Napoleons who'll seek to grab the power-vacuums
Travel just a few weeks after a major outbreak is going to be very hard as official barricades are set up, people start manning their own road-blocks and those loners start targeting aimless travelers.
-
If a zombie outbreak occurs, people will basically break down into one of the following:
-Deniers who'll follow the official government line and just lock their doors and windows
-Those who grab handfuls of stuff and just flee, heading North or to places they think they'll be safe
-Those who become militias and form little defended villages/buildings.
-Loners who keep moving, taking what they need through force. Possibly forming roving gangs.
-Little Napoleons who'll seek to grab the power-vacuums
Travel just a few weeks after a major outbreak is going to be very hard as official barricades are set up, people start manning their own road-blocks and those loners start targeting aimless travelers.
Most of that will come later. People that try to rove around and rob people will probably fall victim to the zombies just as quickly as those that try to flee. I think certain people are natural leaders and will be thrust into a leading position in the groups. You've all seen it happen, you're in a group and there is always a certain person everyone looks to for plans. Human nature tends to smooth over most group relations in rough times.
I see two successful groups, those who sit down in a heavily defended area, and those who form a massive caravan Genghis khan style. So large that it can fight off any zombie attack and taking supplies from every location it goes. Unfortunately the roving group will never be able to settle down due to its massive size and complete lack of infrastructure.
-
Looted? by a shadow population? Looting wouldn't occur until order breaks down. Order wouldn't break down until a loss of population. Also a common enemy has a way of keeping people together for a time. By the time things got hopeless there wouldn't be enough people to loot anything. You could take as much as you could, and you wouldn't put a dent in the overall stock of supplies.
What about when panicked refugees plunder the land like a locust swarm, devouring all of the food in their inevitable path north until the cold kills them off?
Where would these swarms of people come from? Traveling any distance with no supplies would lead to you being hunted down by zombies.
It's not as sharp a drop as you think. The outbreak will begin in maybe one or two places, and as they grew people would panic and entire cities would attempt to migrate north without even having seen a zombie.
Oh really? You don't think it would be covered up and people would ignore it until it was on their doorstep? The government wouldn't release that sort of information, they wouldn't want the panic, and when people were told the information they would believe it would be contained.
It is hard to get people to act without them getting first hand experience with something. Society doesn't break down until the population starts dropping dramatically. Even during the bombing of london business continued.
There's only so long a government can cover things like that up, by the time entire nations are collapsing and small outbreaks are occurring closer to home people will panic, I assure you. Business continued in London because there was hope of victory.
So an army of dead is forming, and you think people would grab things and take off? I'm pretty sure people would be forming groups. I'd be setting up a shelter with my neighbors, and collecting as much ammo as possible. If there was that much advanced warning I'm sure most people would be digging bunkers, and surrounding themselves with barbed wire. At this point the zombies wouldn't really stand a chance of spreading.
People would shit bricks and run for the countryside, knowing only that city=death. I'm pretty sure that people who'd set up for a siege would be few, and those who surrounded themselves with barbed wire would be even fewer, and grow fewer by the hour because pain doesn't slow them.
Run where? People don't simply run. It's not in our nature. We may wander a little, but people always tend to have a destination set in their head. At most people would relocate, but after that defense would be the foremost thing on people's minds.
And how will they intend to survive the journey?
We were assuming only a small outbreak of zombies at this point. You can't jump back and forth. If the outbreak is already large than we wouldn't be at this situation. So I'll say moving in a car along major highways should allow them to keep moving without stopping. Meaning the FEW zombies they ran into wouldn't even be able to get near their car by the time they went by, let alone kill them.
I was referring to starvation, and the roads would choke with traffic, then panicked people crashing because they're going much too fast, desperate to escape, so most people will end up on foot.
-
Guys. Bottomline: Zombies are here.
Who here has thought of creating a hydroelectric dam or using an existing one for power?
-
Guys. Bottomline: Zombies are here.
Who has thought of flooding an area to generate electricity when there are much easier methods?
fixd
-
Ok. Describe your renewable energy source.
-
(http://i28.tinypic.com/xpbmvo.jpg)
Wait, you guys! Seriously. You're forgetting to factor in the Umbrella Corporation! The Redfields should be contacted and an elite task force assembled. The possible involvement of Wesker should be ascertained as well.
One thing that always irked me about the series is Wesker. He's such a pompous asshole that you could probably trick him into solving the zombie outbreak by just telling him he can't do it.
-
Ok. Describe your renewable energy source.
The billions of barrels of oil laying about with a now decimated population and choked roads rendering automobiles useless. It's less renewable and more impossible to deplete within our lifetime.
-
So your plan is to siphon gas forever?
-
Ok. Describe your renewable energy source.
The billions of barrels of oil laying about with a now decimated population and choked roads rendering automobiles useless. It's less renewable and more impossible to deplete within our lifetime.
How would you go about refining the oil?
-
Ok. Describe your renewable energy source.
The billions of barrels of oil laying about with a now decimated population and choked roads rendering automobiles useless. It's less renewable and more impossible to deplete within our lifetime.
How would you go about refining the oil?
Thankfully that has also been done. Gas pumps are everywhere. Each holding lots of gas. I simply said oil to be generic about which form of petroleum would be used.
-
Ok. Describe your renewable energy source.
The billions of barrels of oil laying about with a now decimated population and choked roads rendering automobiles useless. It's less renewable and more impossible to deplete within our lifetime.
How would you go about refining the oil?
Thankfully that has also been done. Gas pumps are everywhere. Each holding lots of gas. I simply said oil to be generic about which form of petroleum would be used.
does gas stay good indefinitely?
-
Ok. Describe your renewable energy source.
The billions of barrels of oil laying about with a now decimated population and choked roads rendering automobiles useless. It's less renewable and more impossible to deplete within our lifetime.
How would you go about refining the oil?
Thankfully that has also been done. Gas pumps are everywhere. Each holding lots of gas. I simply said oil to be generic about which form of petroleum would be used.
does gas stay good indefinitely?
Properly stored yes. Though you can also have generators that run purely on crude. As well as oil wells that run on natural gas meaning this crude oil would continue to pump out of the ground. Heck you can run some generators on used motor oil.
-
sorry to go slightly of track, but how is this disease passed to one another?
-
Bodily fluids. They vomit blood or have weeping wounds in their mouths leading to their bites transmitting it. Or conversely, they go with the spiritual "undead" where some force reanimates the dead. I don't see why that version of zombie is the "universally accepted" one to some. Considering it is a physical impossibility and refers more to undead than zombies.
-
Bodily fluids. They vomit blood or have weeping wounds in their mouths leading to their bites transmitting it. Or conversely, they go with the spiritual "undead" where some force reanimates the dead. I don't see why that version of zombie is the "universally accepted" one to some. Considering it is a physical impossibility and refers more to undead than zombies.
Cheers for that.
So if i died tomorrow from lets say a heart ache. Due to the fact i had not exchanged fluids then i would not come back?
-
Bodily fluids. They vomit blood or have weeping wounds in their mouths leading to their bites transmitting it. Or conversely, they go with the spiritual "undead" where some force reanimates the dead. I don't see why that version of zombie is the "universally accepted" one to some. Considering it is a physical impossibility and refers more to undead than zombies.
Zombies is zombies. Haints is another matter.
-
Bodily fluids. They vomit blood or have weeping wounds in their mouths leading to their bites transmitting it. Or conversely, they go with the spiritual "undead" where some force reanimates the dead. I don't see why that version of zombie is the "universally accepted" one to some. Considering it is a physical impossibility and refers more to undead than zombies.
Cheers for that.
So if i died tomorrow from lets say a heart ache. Due to the fact i had not exchanged fluids then i would not come back?
Depends. If it was a virus, then you'd be dead forever because a virus uses living cells to alter us. If it is something else then perhaps it could bring you back to life.
-
does gas stay good indefinitely?
It depends. Gasoline by itself can last for years, but E10 gas can start to separate in as little as 90 days (less if directly exposed to water).
http://www.fuel-testers.com/expiration_of_ethanol_gas.html
-
What percent of gasoline is E10?
-
What percent of gasoline is E10?
In the U.S.? Very little. The pumps are specially marked and it can only go in certain cars. Though that's the cost of using ethanol gas mixtures.
-
What percent of gasoline is E10?
In the U.S.? Very little. The pumps are specially marked and it can only go in certain cars. Though that's the cost of using ethanol gas mixtures.
I think you are thinking E85. I think most pumps are actually E10
-
Hmm, maybe, though in the U.S. we don't use E10.
We in fact used less than 1% E10 in our overall gasoline consumption.
-
Well then Raist wins again. But has to be other ways besides gasoline generators for power. I mean I'm not talking about putting solar panels everywhere, that's just stupid. There must be something else.
I thought a hydro electric dam was a good idea...
-
Well then Raist wins again. But has to be other ways besides gasoline generators for power. I mean I'm not talking about putting solar panels everywhere, that's just stupid. There must be something else.
I thought a hydro electric dam was a good idea...
Meh, give solar power about 5 years and it'll be viable. I do agree that at the moment it is one of the less efficient ways to generate power, but the technology is getting damn close.
In a short term survival scenario, existing power sources are pretty much a limiting factor. Now if you are including a rebuilding scenario then the gasoline generator idea is shot and hydro electric becomes a great idea. Especially with the lack of infrastructure.
-
Yes well even in the short run, gasoline generators make an awful lot of noise.
-
Depending on where you are, that might not be a problem. Tanks are pretty noisy as well, if you get my drift.
-
I'd have planned on building a concrete bunker with a narrow entrance. It'd make each of my bullets count for a lot more. It'd take more than 6 bodies to stop a 30.06 bullet.
-
Well I guess now that I think about it, if I put the generators in the basement, that would severely reduce the noise. BUT, I would then have to worry about them overheating because they're in a confined space.
Then again I wouldn't run them all 24/7...
-
Running out of oxygen would be your biggest concern if you were running them in a basement.
With the right sound dampeners you could have them quieted down to nothing.
-
The basement isn't a sealed box, there's ventilation, but not enough to carry away the heat. I've looked into sound proofing but I don't know if I could find anything in the area that would suffice.
-
The basement isn't a sealed box, there's ventilation, but not enough to carry away the heat. I've looked into sound proofing but I don't know if I could find anything in the area that would suffice.
Sure there's ventilation, but running a gasoline engine in an enclosed space produces huge amounts of carbon monoxide. You wouldn't run out of oxygen, but going down into the basement could be a quick way to die.
-
lol I am just full of fail at realizing these things...
Ok. Well, I'll figure something out. I'll have nothing better to do when the zombies come. After all, my strategy rests heavily on the assumption that I have a steady source of electricity.
-
Wind turbines, or possibly some kind of zombie powered giant hamster wheel to generate electricity?
-
zombie powered giant hamster wheel
Holy shit, that would work.
-
Too dangerous. Unless you can muzzle the zombie. But even then, too dangerous. WAY too dangerous.
-
As long as you built the structure beforehand, and then trapped it inside. Just stay away from the wheel at all times.
And if they need to eat throw it other zombies for food.
-
They're too heavy for me to throw and my Acme Zombie Heaver is broken.
-
And then when the wheel breaks due to people not maintaining it you have less power and a zombie in your shelter.
-
And then when the wheel breaks due to people not maintaining it you have less power and a zombie in your shelter.
A wheel made of farm gates. solid steel, with a masterlock holding it shut. It wouldn't break in any way that would allow the zombie escape.
-
You'd still need more than one...10 at least for real power.
-
Too dangerous. Unless you can muzzle the zombie. But even then, too dangerous. WAY too dangerous.
Remove the lower jaw and arms. All it can do then is kick you (causing it to fall over, they have zero balance) and try and rake its teeth across you, which is not only harmless, but fairly unlikely for a zombie to think of.
-
Too dangerous. Unless you can muzzle the zombie. But even then, too dangerous. WAY too dangerous.
Remove the lower jaw and arms. All it can do then is kick you (causing it to fall over, they have zero balance) and try and rake its teeth across you, which is not only harmless, but fairly unlikely for a zombie to think of.
Well that would make it useless in its zombie wheel. As it would just fall over.
-
... It'd take more than 6 bodies to stop a 30.06 bullet.
False information. 30-06(no idea what a 30.06 is) muzzle velocity is ok and its penetration is ok. But its not even going to be close to going through 6 bodies.
-
Fine, he'll use a 50 caliber rifle.
-
Fine, he'll use a .50 caliber rifle.
Fixed. That could work.
I will inform you guys about shooting people (or zombies in this case). You want all the energy to transfer to the target. So if you had a bullet go through 6 zombies it would not faze them. This is called over penetration. Hollow points do a good job transferring energy.
-
... It'd take more than 6 bodies to stop a 30.06 bullet.
False information. 30-06(no idea what a 30.06 is) muzzle velocity is ok and its penetration is ok. But its not even going to be close to going through 6 bodies.
Out of what gun? From a bolt action it will go through an engine block.
A 30.06 fmj will go through 7 gallons of water.
-
... It'd take more than 6 bodies to stop a 30.06 bullet.
False information. 30-06(no idea what a 30.06 is) muzzle velocity is ok and its penetration is ok. But its not even going to be close to going through 6 bodies.
Out of what gun? From a bolt action it will go through an engine block.
Pretty sure that is a myth. I guess a bullet designed for penetration could. Doesn't do much to humans though, as my previous post pointed out. There are plenty of rounds out there that have more energy than the 30-06.
Also, shooting a bullet out of a bolt action does not magically give energy to the bullet.
-
... It'd take more than 6 bodies to stop a 30.06 bullet.
False information. 30-06(no idea what a 30.06 is) muzzle velocity is ok and its penetration is ok. But its not even going to be close to going through 6 bodies.
Out of what gun? From a bolt action it will go through an engine block.
Pretty sure that is a myth. I guess a bullet designed for penetration could. Doesn't do much to humans though, as my previous post pointed out. There are plenty of rounds out there that have more energy than the 30-06.
Also, shooting a bullet out of a bolt action does not magically give energy to the bullet.
I've put one through an engine block thank you. And my little cousin has the hospital records showing the piece of engine block that ended up in his leg.
As for a bolt action not giving energy for a bullet, of course not, it just doesn't steal the gases from the barrel through a less than tight seal or to cycle the bolt.
-
Ok so, how about searching for survivors?
Anyone think about being heroic in the land of the undead?
-
... It'd take more than 6 bodies to stop a 30.06 bullet.
False information. 30-06(no idea what a 30.06 is) muzzle velocity is ok and its penetration is ok. But its not even going to be close to going through 6 bodies.
Out of what gun? From a bolt action it will go through an engine block.
Pretty sure that is a myth. I guess a bullet designed for penetration could. Doesn't do much to humans though, as my previous post pointed out. There are plenty of rounds out there that have more energy than the 30-06.
Also, shooting a bullet out of a bolt action does not magically give energy to the bullet.
I've put one through an engine block thank you. And my little cousin has the hospital records showing the piece of engine block that ended up in his leg.
As for a bolt action not giving energy for a bullet, of course not, it just doesn't steal the gases from the barrel through a less than tight seal or to cycle the bolt.
It probably could have if it had a steel penetrator in it. A lead bullet is not going to go through an iron block.
You guys are also idiots from shooting a block of metal from a piece to come back and hit someone. Although that kind of sounds far fetched as usually the bullet ricochets, not the target.
-
It probably could have if it had a steal penetrator in it. A lead bullet is not going to go through an iron block.
You guys are also idiots from shooting a block of metal from a piece to come back and hit someone. Although that kind of sounds far fetched as usually the bullet ricochets, not the target.
Ok you're done. Now we'll get back to the zombie discussion because it is quite informative to me.
-
It probably could have if it had a steal penetrator in it. A lead bullet is not going to go through an iron block.
You guys are also idiots from shooting a block of metal from a piece to come back and hit someone. Although that kind of sounds far fetched as usually the bullet ricochets, not the target.
Ok you're done. Now we'll get back to the zombie discussion because it is quite informative to me.
Ballistic correctness would come in handy if zombies appeared.
-
Point-shoot-boom. That sounds pretty damn correct.
-
... It'd take more than 6 bodies to stop a 30.06 bullet.
False information. 30-06(no idea what a 30.06 is) muzzle velocity is ok and its penetration is ok. But its not even going to be close to going through 6 bodies.
Out of what gun? From a bolt action it will go through an engine block.
Pretty sure that is a myth. I guess a bullet designed for penetration could. Doesn't do much to humans though, as my previous post pointed out. There are plenty of rounds out there that have more energy than the 30-06.
Also, shooting a bullet out of a bolt action does not magically give energy to the bullet.
I've put one through an engine block thank you. And my little cousin has the hospital records showing the piece of engine block that ended up in his leg.
As for a bolt action not giving energy for a bullet, of course not, it just doesn't steal the gases from the barrel through a less than tight seal or to cycle the bolt.
It probably could have if it had a steel penetrator in it. A lead bullet is not going to go through an iron block.
You guys are also idiots from shooting a block of metal from a piece to come back and hit someone. Although that kind of sounds far fetched as usually the bullet ricochets, not the target.
I truthfully could not tell you the type of bullet as it was not my gun. Yet it was dumb of us to shoot it that close, and a piece of the engine block sheered off or something. It certainly wasn't a ricochet as it came directly back from it.
-
Point-shoot-boom. That sounds pretty damn correct.
If I have to pull the trigger half as much as you do to kill a zombie, who is most likely going to live longer?
I truthfully could not tell you the type of bullet as it was not my gun. Yet it was dumb of us to shoot it that close, and a piece of the engine block sheered off or something. It certainly wasn't a ricochet as it came directly back from it.
Most surplus ammo that I have seen has steel penetrators.
-
Point-shoot-boom. That sounds pretty damn correct.
If I have to pull the trigger half as much as you do to kill a zombie, who is most likely going to live longer?
Me because I won't be fighting zombies to survive, I'll be fighting them during supply runs.
-
Point-shoot-boom. That sounds pretty damn correct.
If I have to pull the trigger half as much as you do to kill a zombie, who is most likely going to live longer?
Me because I won't be fighting zombies to survive, I'll be fighting them during supply runs.
That made so much sense.
-
That made so much sense.
It does, because I won't need to fight those zombies to stay alive, I just need them to go away so I can grab a can of tomato soup.
I don't even need a gun, I can use a school bus, which works MUCH BETTER.
-
That made so much sense.
It does, because I won't need to fight those zombies to stay alive, I just need them to go away so I can grab a can of tomato soup.
I don't even need a gun, I can use a school bus, which works MUCH BETTER.
The only way to not fight zombies to stay alive would be to avoid them. Running over a zombie would be fighting them to stay alive.
-
I hate to join bandwagons but I do not like you.
You just love starting arguments don't you?
This isn't even that important and I'm arguing with you. Well I'm done. You 'win', it doesn't matter.
-
I hate to join bandwagons but I do not like you.
You just love starting arguments don't you?
This isn't even that important and I'm arguing with you. Well I'm done. You 'win', it doesn't matter.
It's funny you get after me for a typo but I get after you for not using reason and you get all mad.
So like I said, ballistics would be helpful to know to fight zombies.
-
That made so much sense.
It does, because I won't need to fight those zombies to stay alive, I just need them to go away so I can grab a can of tomato soup.
I don't even need a gun, I can use a school bus, which works MUCH BETTER.
The only way to not fight zombies to stay alive would be to avoid them. Running over a zombie would be fighting them to stay alive.
Or you could set up a structure in which they can not reach you. Much more effective than moving to get away from them. Or killing them to keep them off of you.
-
That made so much sense.
It does, because I won't need to fight those zombies to stay alive, I just need them to go away so I can grab a can of tomato soup.
I don't even need a gun, I can use a school bus, which works MUCH BETTER.
The only way to not fight zombies to stay alive would be to avoid them. Running over a zombie would be fighting them to stay alive.
Or you could set up a structure in which they can not reach you. Much more effective than moving to get away from them. Or killing them to keep them off of you.
That would work. You are just limited to the location of your structure then.
-
When there are relatively few zombies about you shoot your way out for supplies. Or use a large vehicle to plow your way through.
-
When there are relatively few zombies about you shoot your way out for supplies. Or use a large vehicle to plow your way through.
Yes I agree.
-
It's funny you get after me for a typo but I get after you for not using reason and you get all mad.
So like I said, ballistics would be helpful to know to fight zombies.
Because we're arguing about nothing. We shouldn't care about 'ballistics' right now, all we need to know is 'guns'. There are no specifics in that category because this is about how to survive, not how to fight. Granted that the two WILL overlap at some point, but if you do the first one right, the second one shouldn't be too often.
I'll admit I was being a prick and pointing out typos to help my argument was rude. However, you came here to argue that the caliber of a bullet was wrong....which is completely off topic.
-
It's funny you get after me for a typo but I get after you for not using reason and you get all mad.
So like I said, ballistics would be helpful to know to fight zombies.
Because we're arguing about nothing. We shouldn't care about 'ballistics' right now, all we need to know is 'guns'. There are no specifics in that category because this is about how to survive, not how to fight. Granted that the two WILL overlap at some point, but if you do the first one right, the second one shouldn't be too often.
I'll admit I was being a prick and pointing out typos to help my argument was rude. However, you came here to argue that the caliber of a bullet was wrong....which is completely off topic.
Especially considering energy transfer isn't that important with zombies as you need to pierce the skull if you want to have any effect, necessitating a hell of a penetrative bullet.
-
It's funny you get after me for a typo but I get after you for not using reason and you get all mad.
So like I said, ballistics would be helpful to know to fight zombies.
Because we're arguing about nothing. We shouldn't care about 'ballistics' right now, all we need to know is 'guns'. There are no specifics in that category because this is about how to survive, not how to fight. Granted that the two WILL overlap at some point, but if you do the first one right, the second one shouldn't be too often.
I'll admit I was being a prick and pointing out typos to help my argument was rude. However, you came here to argue that the caliber of a bullet was wrong....which is completely off topic.
Especially considering energy transfer isn't that important with zombies as you need to pierce the skull if you want to have any effect, necessitating a hell of a penetrative bullet.
Pretty much every bullet in the world will penetrate the skull.
-
(http://www.mossberg.com/images/Mossberg_Guns/930/New/51340.jpg)
-
I want to know what is in that kit in a can.
I can not find out anywhere. It is a mystery box.
-
"CONTENTS LISTED ON BACK"
-
I'm going to scrape together 200 bucks and get the shotgun and read the contents!
Mystery contents!
Though I'd probably just use the shotgun. And use the tube it came in to carry shit with. Can you think of a better thing to take your lunch somewhere in?
-
It's funny you get after me for a typo but I get after you for not using reason and you get all mad.
So like I said, ballistics would be helpful to know to fight zombies.
Because we're arguing about nothing. We shouldn't care about 'ballistics' right now, all we need to know is 'guns'. There are no specifics in that category because this is about how to survive, not how to fight. Granted that the two WILL overlap at some point, but if you do the first one right, the second one shouldn't be too often.
I'll admit I was being a prick and pointing out typos to help my argument was rude. However, you came here to argue that the caliber of a bullet was wrong....which is completely off topic.
Especially considering energy transfer isn't that important with zombies as you need to pierce the skull if you want to have any effect, necessitating a hell of a penetrative bullet.
Pretty much every bullet in the world will penetrate the skull.
You wanted six at a time, that's what I was referring to.
-
It's funny you get after me for a typo but I get after you for not using reason and you get all mad.
So like I said, ballistics would be helpful to know to fight zombies.
Because we're arguing about nothing. We shouldn't care about 'ballistics' right now, all we need to know is 'guns'. There are no specifics in that category because this is about how to survive, not how to fight. Granted that the two WILL overlap at some point, but if you do the first one right, the second one shouldn't be too often.
I'll admit I was being a prick and pointing out typos to help my argument was rude. However, you came here to argue that the caliber of a bullet was wrong....which is completely off topic.
Especially considering energy transfer isn't that important with zombies as you need to pierce the skull if you want to have any effect, necessitating a hell of a penetrative bullet.
Pretty much every bullet in the world will penetrate the skull.
You wanted six at a time, that's what I was referring to.
Oh. I didn't really want six at a time. I was just pointing out that a choke point would allow you to hit lots with a single bullet.
-
rocket launchers? flame throwers? why have these not been discussed, besides availability because im sure they are somewhere. oh and suicide bombings too.
-
rocket launchers? flame throwers? why have these not been discussed, besides availability because im sure they are somewhere. oh and suicide bombings too.
Flamethrowers won't stop them, they only stop things that care if they're on fire.
Rocket launchers don't work the way people think they do, at most it will kill 10-15 zombies in the area. And they have to be pretty damn close.
I won't discuss the last one as it is obviously a joke.
-
rocket launchers? flame throwers? why have these not been discussed, besides availability because im sure they are somewhere. oh and suicide bombings too.
Fire kills things very slowly. Basically you'd have flaming zombies grabbing you. Rocket launchers are good at flooding an armored target with an explosion. Not killing things.
-
haha. but the idea is good. no suicide involved car bombs, or bus bombs.
the flamethrower could fry their brains tho, no?
-
haha. but the idea is good. no suicide involved car bombs, or bus bombs.
the flamethrower could fry their brains tho, no?
Not hot enough to get through the skull in a reasonable amount of time.
-
haha. but the idea is good. no suicide involved car bombs, or bus bombs.
the flamethrower could fry their brains tho, no?
Not hot enough to get through the skull in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm assuming fire would not kill through the skull but through the disabling of the body through dehydration and general oxidation. The brain isn't the only way to kill a zombie, they are just hard to kill and hard to disable.
-
Actually most fire deaths are because of trauma or inhalation of 500 degree air.
EDIT: which would not kill a zombie
-
Actually most fire deaths are because of trauma or inhalation of 500 degree air.
EDIT: which would not kill a zombie
Most fire deaths are caused by loss of skin leading to infection or dehydration.
A zombie without water could not move because cell processes would stop. Unless they are now magical and have infinite magical energy fire would kill them.
-
ok then i would go to hawaii and make good friends with the lava gods, because that would probly be good to have at ones disposal in the case of a zombie attack
-
Most fire deaths are caused by loss of skin leading to infection or dehydration.
A zombie without water could not move because cell processes would stop. Unless they are now magical and have infinite magical energy fire would kill them.
That would take quite a long time for either of those to happen, but the latter would most definitely kill the zombie.
-
If you've got balls and the equipment/geography, a good tactic would be to mount a bigass speaker on a heavy, possibly armoured truck, drive through the city streets blaring out something to catch their attention (The Monster Mash, maybe?) drive towards an area prepared with plenty of explosives, maybe a petrol station, leave a brick on the accelerator (only going slowly, you don't wanna lose them) climb onto the roof of the truck and jump onto the roof of an appropriately sized building, duck, wait until the truck has led the zombies into the middle of your trap then BOOM.
-
Haha if we're talking about setting up traps. If you could find a back hoe or just a straight up excavator you could dig a giant trench and just lure zombies into it. Then you could have 2 bulldozers at either end to 'trash compact' them.
Damn that sounds like it could work....
-
It's funny you get after me for a typo but I get after you for not using reason and you get all mad.
So like I said, ballistics would be helpful to know to fight zombies.
Because we're arguing about nothing. We shouldn't care about 'ballistics' right now, all we need to know is 'guns'. There are no specifics in that category because this is about how to survive, not how to fight. Granted that the two WILL overlap at some point, but if you do the first one right, the second one shouldn't be too often.
I'll admit I was being a prick and pointing out typos to help my argument was rude. However, you came here to argue that the caliber of a bullet was wrong....which is completely off topic.
Especially considering energy transfer isn't that important with zombies as you need to pierce the skull if you want to have any effect, necessitating a hell of a penetrative bullet.
If all the bullet does is penetrate, then all it does is make a tiny hole. This does almost nothing.
I came in here to argue ballistics. I just pointed out he stated the caliber wrong, I never said it was the wrong caliber, because I can.
-
Haha if we're talking about setting up traps. If you could find a back hoe or just a straight up excavator you could dig a giant trench and just lure zombies into it. Then you could have 2 bulldozers at either end to 'trash compact' them.
Damn that sounds like it could work....
And if they flank you?
-
Haha if we're talking about setting up traps. If you could find a back hoe or just a straight up excavator you could dig a giant trench and just lure zombies into it. Then you could have 2 bulldozers at either end to 'trash compact' them.
Damn that sounds like it could work....
And if they flank you?
During the construction of this or the trash compacting?
-
Why not just lure zombies into giant holes? A zombie pit would be a fairly effective disposal means.
-
Yeah, but I mean a gigantic hole with no escape. Just lure them in and boom. Done.
-
Hmm well I thought my 'trench' would solve this problem but I've been thinking and I don't think it will.
Your hole problem would definitely NOT avoid this. Even if you cremated the bodies, it would eventually fill up. And I don't think you'd be able to cremate the bodies. My trench would also fill up, but I thought that if I pushed the bodies up and out of the trench with some sort of truck, this could be corrected. However the bodies would still pile up, and the edge of my trench would be filled with bodies and burning them would not get rid of them entirely. I'd either have to move the bodies WAY far away when I start moving them, or dump them into a pit which would fill up as well.
The problem isn't the traps themselves, it's disposing of the bodies.
Your trench they could climb out of. My hole is a trap for 30-40 zombies. I wouldn't really cremate them, just pour some gas in and burn them all to death.
-
To avoid this, you could prepare with a large stock of maggots.
-
To avoid this, you could prepare with a large stock of maggots.
Good idea. Though you might want the pit far away from your house to avoid the inevitable fly swarm.
-
Well, that would be a trade-off, as it would make getting the new maggot stocks so much easier.
-
Have on hand large flocks of maggot eating robins and chickadees for the squeamish. :)
-
I think the zombies will naturally have maggots. Flies will lay eggs on a normal person's dying flesh, a zombie that is unable to even attempt to remove them would be full of maggots in weeks. That would probably be the number one cause of zombie "death"
-
personally I'd either go out to my friends farm who has an ample supply of guns and ammo for the zombies that would head out there, or go about 2 miles where there is a Sams club, Wal-mart and home depot all next to each other where i can fortify the no windowed cement minimal doors Sam's club with supply's i get from home depot, and get food weapons from Wal-mart
-
Problem: Everyone is going to try and head to the local supermarket. Chances are good that most of the deaths in places like wal-mart won't be from zombies but fighting amongst survivors.
-
True. Zombies are most likely to have numerous infections as well. The exposed flesh of their wounds and just general decay will be like a haven for bacteria.
Depending on what zombie universe you've got, you won't have that much decay in some cases.
-
Ahat sort of universe needs clarity in certain cases to determine a solution.
-
Now we can get back to the reeeealy serious stuff. ;D
-
I missed this thread!!!
-
How long will zombies last without eating brains?
-
They don't need to eat at all, especially not brains.
-
They don't need to eat at all, especially not brains.
So why do they?
-
They don't need to eat at all, especially not brains.
So why do they?
Biting is an instinct implanted by the virus to spread it, they're not intended to actually eat them.
-
I am baiting some traps with some really sticky caramel. That should take care of their really rotten teeth.
-
They don't need to eat at all, especially not brains.
So why do they?
Biting is an instinct implanted by the virus to spread it, they're not intended to actually eat them.
Then they would live only a few weeks. They would have no source of energy.
-
They don't need to eat at all, especially not brains.
So why do they?
Biting is an instinct implanted by the virus to spread it, they're not intended to actually eat them.
Then they would live only a few weeks. They would have no source of energy.
This was what I was going to point out.
-
I agree. Being "undead" shouldn't be exempt from needing to metabolize food to provide energy for motor functions. As with a living body, undead bodies would probably start cannibalizing itself for energy and muscles would atrophy to the point of non-mobility...
-
Or, something that has NEVER been in a zombie movie, they would eat each other. They have no legitimate way of differentiating a zombie from a normal person. They should behave like rabid animals, not like huge mass pack hunters.
They should attack anything on site, zombie or otherwise, which would also allow you a better chance of survival with them killing each other.
-
Or, something that has NEVER been in a zombie movie, they would eat each other. They have no legitimate way of differentiating a zombie from a normal person. They should behave like rabid animals, not like huge mass pack hunters.
They should attack anything on site, zombie or otherwise, which would also allow you a better chance of survival with them killing each other.
Too right, if they kill each other, then you would only need to hold up a few days.
-
Or, something that has NEVER been in a zombie movie, they would eat each other. They have no legitimate way of differentiating a zombie from a normal person. They should behave like rabid animals, not like huge mass pack hunters.
They should attack anything on site, zombie or otherwise, which would also allow you a better chance of survival with them killing each other.
And if they only eat fresh meat like nearly all other predator?
-
And like I said right off the bat, we should hire a zombie consultant so we have a better idea of what we might be dealing with.
No one ever listens to me.
-
And like I said right off the bat, we should hire a zombie consultant so we have a better idea of what we might be dealing with.
No one ever listens to me.
Like this guy?
(http://img2.allposters.com/images/AQUA/24-638S.jpg)
-
And like I said right off the bat, we should hire a zombie consultant so we have a better idea of what we might be dealing with.
No one ever listens to me.
Like this guy?
(http://img2.allposters.com/images/AQUA/24-638S.jpg)
I would hire him.
-
Rob Zombie necros long-dead movie franchises. He's earned his title.
-
We should ask for credentials and recommendations, first. Frankly, he looks a little too strung out to accomplish much of anything but he does indeed make a great first impression.
-
We should ask for credentials and recommendations, first. Frankly, he looks a little too strung out to accomplish much of anything but he does indeed make a great first impression.
He's seen more B-movies than any other living man, that's a hell of a qualification.
-
Good point.
Next question: what is his fee?
-
Good point.
Next question: what is his fee?
He's a pretty cool guy, I think he'd take a position of zombie consultant for the Flat Earth Society for free, it's not a full time job (and doesn't afraid of anything or something).
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
Yeah, but what if it turns out that these are mountain zombies? or hill zombies?
They aren't all beach zombies.
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
And when they inevitably wear out?
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
And when they inevitably wear out?
The guns?
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
And when they inevitably wear out?
The guns?
Yeah, or when they run out of ammo, break or jam in such a way you don't have time to fix them. Basically, what happens when it goes to shit?
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
And when they inevitably wear out?
The guns?
Yeah, or when they run out of ammo, break or jam in such a way you don't have time to fix them. Basically, what happens when it goes to shit?
Well them breaking or wearing out is unlikely. Though Murphy's law does come into play. However, it is entirely possible to run out of ammo. That's why I'd likley bring a .22lr rifle with lots of ammunition 50,000 rounds. I'd probably be using a ATV so the extra 50lbs of weight would be manageable.
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
And when they inevitably wear out?
The guns?
Yeah, or when they run out of ammo, break or jam in such a way you don't have time to fix them. Basically, what happens when it goes to shit?
Well them breaking or wearing out is unlikely. Though Murphy's law does come into play. However, it is entirely possible to run out of ammo. That's why I'd likley bring a .22lr rifle with lots of ammunition 50,000 rounds. I'd probably be using a ATV so the extra 50lbs of weight would be manageable.
And where do you plan to get the ATV? That seems more unlikely than a Western gun wearing out.
-
Get a horse.
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
And when they inevitably wear out?
The guns?
Yeah, or when they run out of ammo, break or jam in such a way you don't have time to fix them. Basically, what happens when it goes to shit?
Well them breaking or wearing out is unlikely. Though Murphy's law does come into play. However, it is entirely possible to run out of ammo. That's why I'd likley bring a .22lr rifle with lots of ammunition 50,000 rounds. I'd probably be using a ATV so the extra 50lbs of weight would be manageable.
And where do you plan to get the ATV? That seems more unlikely than a Western gun wearing out.
I have an ATV already. Also both those firearms are far from prone to wearing out, hence the U.S. is still using some Nam era M-16's. FN manufacturers the other, they have a reputation for putting out an extremely high quality guns.
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
And when they inevitably wear out?
The guns?
Yeah, or when they run out of ammo, break or jam in such a way you don't have time to fix them. Basically, what happens when it goes to shit?
Well them breaking or wearing out is unlikely. Though Murphy's law does come into play. However, it is entirely possible to run out of ammo. That's why I'd likley bring a .22lr rifle with lots of ammunition 50,000 rounds. I'd probably be using a ATV so the extra 50lbs of weight would be manageable.
And where do you plan to get the ATV? That seems more unlikely than a Western gun wearing out.
I have an ATV already. Also both those firearms are far from prone to wearing out, hence the U.S. is still using some Nam era M-16's. FN manufacturers the other, they have a reputation for putting out an extremely high quality guns.
Really? That's pretty epic about the ATV but if the US is still using 'Nam era M16s then you have a massive defence problem, they were crap back then.
-
They were crap because they weren't issued with cleaning kits, today that's a different story.
Also I own a 2000 Honda Rancher.
(http://static.racingjunk.com/79/ui/4/13/2891864741692-honda-350-rancher-2000.jpg)
-
Ideally I'd take one of these, ammo, and food, then run for the hills
(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn/FNH_CB_PS90.jpg)
It's light
Accurate
Compact
Light ammunition, so you can carry a ton
Reasonable power, enough to kill a zombie or harvest game
50 Round magazine
Currently the best I have is this
(http://i32.tinypic.com/1zpl63t.jpg)
Exact same set up but an Eotech as opposed to an Aimpoint, and no flashlight.
Pretty light
Extremely accurate
Light ammo, though not quite as light as the 5.7
30 round magazines
Decent power, enough to blow a zombies head up
And when they inevitably wear out?
The guns?
Yeah, or when they run out of ammo, break or jam in such a way you don't have time to fix them. Basically, what happens when it goes to shit?
Well them breaking or wearing out is unlikely. Though Murphy's law does come into play. However, it is entirely possible to run out of ammo. That's why I'd likley bring a .22lr rifle with lots of ammunition 50,000 rounds. I'd probably be using a ATV so the extra 50lbs of weight would be manageable.
And where do you plan to get the ATV? That seems more unlikely than a Western gun wearing out.
I have an ATV already. Also both those firearms are far from prone to wearing out, hence the U.S. is still using some Nam era M-16's. FN manufacturers the other, they have a reputation for putting out an extremely high quality guns.
Really? That's pretty epic about the ATV but if the US is still using 'Nam era M16s then you have a massive defence problem, they were crap back then.
Training rifles.
Also, assault rifles don't wear out in a year or two of use. Wars can last for a long time and we can't have rifles breaking halfway through. In truth guns are fairly simplistic machines made with extremely durable parts. A winchester shotgun will last for decades of police use. The one in our sheriff's office "broke" turns out it just needed cleaned from disuse. It was 30-40 years old.
-
You're entirely right, of course, bar one word. You missed out "good" before "guns", the M16 had none of those qualities. It was ridiculously complicated, difficult to clean, difficult to oil, to service, to maintain at all, and if it wasn't it would jam in a flash. This was such a well publicised problem it even ended up in Far Cry 2, not noted for particularly detailed research.
-
Why do people get so excited over guns? What's the big deal about being able to send a tiny piece of metal flying at a few hundred kilometres per hour?
-
have an ATV already. Also both those firearms are far from prone to wearing out, hence the U.S. is still using some Nam era M-16's. FN manufacturers the other, they have a reputation for putting out an extremely high quality guns.
i don't know about that. when i was in the marines, i never saw a M-16A1. i only ever handled the A2, which was employed in the 80's.
-
You're entirely right, of course, bar one word. You missed out "good" before "guns", the M16 had none of those qualities. It was ridiculously complicated, difficult to clean, difficult to oil, to service, to maintain at all, and if it wasn't it would jam in a flash. This was such a well publicised problem it even ended up in Far Cry 2, not noted for particularly detailed research.
And did he ever mention getting the A-1?
-
You're entirely right, of course, bar one word. You missed out "good" before "guns", the M16 had none of those qualities. It was ridiculously complicated, difficult to clean, difficult to oil, to service, to maintain at all, and if it wasn't it would jam in a flash. This was such a well publicised problem it even ended up in Far Cry 2, not noted for particularly detailed research.
And did he ever mention getting the A-1?
He?
-
You're entirely right, of course, bar one word. You missed out "good" before "guns", the M16 had none of those qualities. It was ridiculously complicated, difficult to clean, difficult to oil, to service, to maintain at all, and if it wasn't it would jam in a flash. This was such a well publicised problem it even ended up in Far Cry 2, not noted for particularly detailed research.
And did he ever mention getting the A-1?
He?
Anteater is a guy. I thought this was general knowledge?
-
You're entirely right, of course, bar one word. You missed out "good" before "guns", the M16 had none of those qualities. It was ridiculously complicated, difficult to clean, difficult to oil, to service, to maintain at all, and if it wasn't it would jam in a flash. This was such a well publicised problem it even ended up in Far Cry 2, not noted for particularly detailed research.
And did he ever mention getting the A-1?
He?
Anteater is a guy. I thought this was general knowledge?
Ah, Anteater. No, I don't think he said.
-
That first rifle he showed has almost no metal parts, it's practically a maintenance free gun.
-
That first rifle he showed has almost no metal parts, it's practically a maintenance free gun.
Yes, but it's going to wear out eventually. If it's an apocalypse we're talking about zombies could be surviving for over a century (although they're unlikely to pop up at that point, most will be gone in 10-15 years).
-
Why do people get so excited over guns? What's the big deal about being able to send a tiny piece of metal flying at a few hundred kilometres per hour?
When faced with zombies, being able to fight at range is always preferable to melee combat, mostly because getting eaten isn't cool.
-
Why do people get so excited over guns? What's the big deal about being able to send a tiny piece of metal flying at a few hundred kilometres per hour?
When faced with zombies, being able to fight at range is always preferable to melee combat, mostly because getting eaten isn't cool.
Ballistics are the most breakable and least fixable weapons, and without ammo they're useless. Bows and arrows are much better against zombies, crossbows better still.
-
have an ATV already. Also both those firearms are far from prone to wearing out, hence the U.S. is still using some Nam era M-16's. FN manufacturers the other, they have a reputation for putting out an extremely high quality guns.
i don't know about that. when i was in the marines, i never saw a M-16A1. i only ever handled the A2, which was employed in the 80's.
When I was in the Corps ('84-'88), the A1 was in the process of being phased out. Of course, with my luck, I went through boot camp with an A1 and when I got to my duty station I was in a MCB unit so we still has the A1s there too. That's about the time that the Beretta 9mm started to replace the old .45, so I never got to handle one of those either.
-
Why do people get so excited over guns? What's the big deal about being able to send a tiny piece of metal flying at a few hundred kilometres per hour?
When faced with zombies, being able to fight at range is always preferable to melee combat, mostly because getting eaten isn't cool.
Ballistics are the most breakable and least fixable weapons, and without ammo they're useless. Bows and arrows are much better against zombies, crossbows better still.
I would think that arrows just don't have the same kinetic impact as a high powered bullet.
-
Why do people get so excited over guns? What's the big deal about being able to send a tiny piece of metal flying at a few hundred kilometres per hour?
When faced with zombies, being able to fight at range is always preferable to melee combat, mostly because getting eaten isn't cool.
Ballistics are the most breakable and least fixable weapons, and without ammo they're useless. Bows and arrows are much better against zombies, crossbows better still.
I would think that arrows just don't have the same kinetic impact as a high powered bullet.
No, it would require a lot of skill to get a kill with it, so a crossbow is preferable. It's still better than a gun, as it lacks the temptation to go apeshit.
-
Why do people get so excited over guns? What's the big deal about being able to send a tiny piece of metal flying at a few hundred kilometres per hour?
When faced with zombies, being able to fight at range is always preferable to melee combat, mostly because getting eaten isn't cool.
Ballistics are the most breakable and least fixable weapons, and without ammo they're useless. Bows and arrows are much better against zombies, crossbows better still.
Bows and crossbows are pretty useless without ammo too.
-
Why do people get so excited over guns? What's the big deal about being able to send a tiny piece of metal flying at a few hundred kilometres per hour?
When faced with zombies, being able to fight at range is always preferable to melee combat, mostly because getting eaten isn't cool.
Ballistics are the most breakable and least fixable weapons, and without ammo they're useless. Bows and arrows are much better against zombies, crossbows better still.
Bows and crossbows are pretty useless without ammo too.
You can make arrows and bolts though, have fun constructing bullets.
-
That first rifle he showed has almost no metal parts, it's practically a maintenance free gun.
Yes, but it's going to wear out eventually. If it's an apocalypse we're talking about zombies could be surviving for over a century (although they're unlikely to pop up at that point, most will be gone in 10-15 years).
What would be their food source? That estimate is ridiculous. A species with no capability to farm, or hunt in a sustainable way starting with a population in the billions would collapse very within a year. There may be stray zombies for a few years but the survivors would easily set up walled cities and not have to worry about them.
-
Ideally I'd have one of these babies (http://www.bomb-shelter.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=79) for long-term survival.
http://www.bomb-shelter.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=161
-
You're entirely right, of course, bar one word. You missed out "good" before "guns", the M16 had none of those qualities. It was ridiculously complicated, difficult to clean, difficult to oil, to service, to maintain at all, and if it wasn't it would jam in a flash. This was such a well publicised problem it even ended up in Far Cry 2, not noted for particularly detailed research.
I take it you've never handled one.
Whitens it's complication!
-
On a slightly related note, have you noticed that it's a serious pain in the ass to get some AK's bolts back in the receiver when reassembling the gun?
-
You can make arrows and bolts though, have fun constructing bullets.
Why, is it hard? http://www.huntingtons.com/
-
You can make every single part of a bullet yourself including the powder. This assumes you have scrap metal but that wouldn't be hard to come by.
-
Another thing all of you are forgetting: where will you find resources like these after the uprising? I'm not talking about 'guns' or 'ammo' I'm talking about information on how to maintain guns, or make ammo. Sure you can find it easily with the internet, but there is no internet as soon as civilization falls. Sure you can find an owners manual for a gun, but those are likely to be scarce with military weaponry.
Not really. Go to a gun store, and there will be gun manuals everywhere.
-
I'm guessing that as the zombie population increases and the human population decreases, the gun to human ratio will make spare guns more available.
-
Yes but military weaponry won't have the owners manuals lying around. I doubt they give them to soldiers, and the blueprints for the weaponry aren't lying around either. So good luck trying to replace some part in a gun you can't find the schematics for or an owners manual for, at least not easily.
Ar-15/M-16's are very simple to operate; play with one for a few minutes, and you'll have it mostly figured out.
-
Yes but military weaponry won't have the owners manuals lying around. I doubt they give them to soldiers, and the blueprints for the weaponry aren't lying around either. So good luck trying to replace some part in a gun you can't find the schematics for or an owners manual for, at least not easily.
Ar-15/M-16's are very simple to operate play one for a few minutes and you'll have it mostly figured out.
Yeah they make those things simple to use for a reason. Click, point, shoot.
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n306/usaf_groundrat/M-16_2.jpg)
*Edit* fixed for picture fail
-
Yes but military weaponry won't have the owners manuals lying around. I doubt they give them to soldiers, and the blueprints for the weaponry aren't lying around either. So good luck trying to replace some part in a gun you can't find the schematics for or an owners manual for, at least not easily.
99% of military weaponry is sold in a civilian version hardly any different from a normal gun. In fact if you had a "military" gun, most likely it is the civilian semi auto version. So yes, manuals on it would be common. Guns also are fairly simple machines, you take them apart and you can instantly see what is broken and how, then you grab a kit for that gun and replace the part. As the population is thinned to nothing it would also be easier to replace a gun than fix it. (I have a Russian rifle that spen 20ish years laying around in a garage, it fires, and after some use the bolt is even smooth.
-
I stand corrected on the issue of gun maintenance, however manufacturing bullets is still a little far fetched. I still stand that guns are quite secondary in surviving the uprising.
Although the idea that guns will be easier to maintain than I thought is quite nice...
Making black powder and cast lead bullets is incredibly simple. Any lever-action could be effectively fed infinitely.
-
I stand corrected on the issue of gun maintenance, however manufacturing bullets is still a little far fetched. I still stand that guns are quite secondary in surviving the uprising.
Although the idea that guns will be easier to maintain than I thought is quite nice...
Making black powder and cast lead bullets is incredibly simple. Any lever-action could be effectively fed infinitely.
It seems that getting salt peter and sulfur could start to get difficult though. do you know where to get sulfur in any quantity?
-
I stand corrected on the issue of gun maintenance, however manufacturing bullets is still a little far fetched. I still stand that guns are quite secondary in surviving the uprising.
Although the idea that guns will be easier to maintain than I thought is quite nice...
Making black powder and cast lead bullets is incredibly simple. Any lever-action could be effectively fed infinitely.
It is simple, but how do you propose a novice gets potassium nitrate or sulphur? Any reasonable oasis would have to be a long way from any good sources of the two.
-
"Urine has also been used in the manufacture of saltpetre for gunpowder. In this process, stale urine placed in a container of straw hay is allowed to sour for many months, after which water is used to wash the resulting chemical salts from the straw. The process is completed by filtering the liquid through wood ashes and air-drying in the sun.[3] Saltpetre crystals can then be collected and added to sulfur and charcoal to create black powder.[4] Potassium nitrate could also be harvested from accumulations of bat guano in caves. This was the traditional method used in Laos for the manufacture of gunpowder for Bang Fai rockets."
-
don't you also need caps or something to make the bullet work unless you are using a musket?
second I can't believe that saltpeter would be pure enough for some of the newer guns.
-
"Urine has also been used in the manufacture of saltpetre for gunpowder. In this process, stale urine placed in a container of straw hay is allowed to sour for many months, after which water is used to wash the resulting chemical salts from the straw. The process is completed by filtering the liquid through wood ashes and air-drying in the sun.[3] Saltpetre crystals can then be collected and added to sulfur and charcoal to create black powder.[4] Potassium nitrate could also be harvested from accumulations of bat guano in caves. This was the traditional method used in Laos for the manufacture of gunpowder for Bang Fai rockets."
And this is going to be efficient enough when you're firing upwards of 100 rounds a day against the ever-advancing hordes?
-
bat guano
-
It is simple, but how do you propose a novice gets potassium nitrate or sulphur? Any reasonable oasis would have to be a long way from any good sources of the two.
The chemistry lab in my school has both of those in abundance. If it doesn't have potassium nitrate I know it has SOMETHING-nitrate and potassium, so I could make it.
"enough" was the operative word.
-
True. I meant "good".
-
Poo and Urine mixed and allowed to ferment form salt peter. Both of those should be found in abundance at any shelter.
Any other stupid questions? Do you really think that ancient europe had access to large amounts of chemicals?
-
Poo and Urine mixed and allowed to ferment form salt peter. Both of those should be found in abundance at any shelter.
Any other stupid questions? Do you really think that ancient europe had access to large amounts of chemicals?
Yes, could these be mixed from the waste of a fairly small group to make an adequate amount of ammo to kill all of the zombie hordes? Wouldn't the smell of the decaying faeces attract more zombies? Wouldn't the stench become unbearable to the inhabitants?
-
a) yes.
b) no idea ask a zombie, i surely wouldn't be attracted to large amounts of waste
c) didn't seem to bother people in the midevil times. You get used to all sorts of things i guess.
-
So you're saying we could set up a reliable fecal farm of human waste (please note that since they lack the human psyche they trust all of their senses equally, as opposed to our disproportionate dependence on sight) in a confined space to produce hundreds of bullets a day, and you foresee no problems? I envy your optimism for now, but my opinions will likely change when these ideas come crashing around you along with the walls of your fortress. Meanwhile, I will be far away, carving bolts and spinning plant fibers into strings.
-
I'd say you could produce much more blackpowder than bolts timewise. And I doubt you would need hundreds of bullets a day by the time the stock of ready munitions was burned through. Population decimation on both sides would ensure that a few well placed shots a day would deal with them. We are talking years after the initial zombie invasion once walled cities are constructed. I at the moment have over a thousand rounds in my basement.
-
And I'm sure most other people have similar amounts, but that won't help when they burn through them faster than early Christians through science books.
-
And I'm sure most other people have similar amounts, but that won't help when they burn through them faster than early Christians through science books.
The gun store I got them from had plenty. I took a single box, holding a thousand, and they have hundreds of similar boxes in the back. I'm not sure how quickly you could burn through a thousand rounds considering reloading clips is a bitch. With local population density, I'm pretty sure I could get out of town and into the woods shooting only about 40 rounds. Less if the roads were clear, which would be expected in an such a small town.
-
Just collapes the stairs of all the houses around you and live on the 2nd floor+. Use wood, upturned bookcases and the like to link upstairs windows or roofs to other houses/business premesis. Have some sort of rope that needs to be climbed to get in (i doubt zombies have the coordination to shimmy up ropes).You could have a whole potato farm just above the bastards heads. Although i will accept you could come to an embarressing end if you dident tie your rope properly or get lost in the dark and forget where you left it.
-
Not everyone lives in suburban neighborhoods where all the houses are two feet away from each other.
-
Ah, but i shall keep the scheme going untill a significant portion of the earths landmass is coverd, enableing us to walk freely above the heads of the zombies.
Eventually, i shall even have the junk piled high enough to see over the ice wall.
-
Ah, but i shall keep the scheme going untill a significant portion of the earths landmass is coverd, enableing us to walk freely above the heads of the zombies.
Eventually, i shall even have the junk piled high enough to see over the ice wall.
You are dumb and you post dumb things.
-
Just collapes the stairs of all the houses around you and live on the 2nd floor+. Use wood, upturned bookcases and the like to link upstairs windows or roofs to other houses/business premesis. Have some sort of rope that needs to be climbed to get in (i doubt zombies have the coordination to shimmy up ropes).You could have a whole potato farm just above the bastards heads. Although i will accept you could come to an embarressing end if you dident tie your rope properly or get lost in the dark and forget where you left it.
In all the ideas posted about possible shelters you could have, this ranks up there as the most misguided and most likely to fail with in a day.
Your just jelous because i wont let you into my 2nd story paradies on doomsday.
-
Poo and Urine mixed and allowed to ferment form salt peter. Both of those should be found in abundance at any shelter.
Any other stupid questions? Do you really think that ancient europe had access to large amounts of chemicals?
A. where would you get sulfur.
B. do you think that the guns in ancient europe needed as high quality black powder as today chemicals.
C. don't you still need stuff that sets off the charge? that I imagine will be harder to come by.
-
Just collapes the stairs of all the houses around you and live on the 2nd floor+. Use wood, upturned bookcases and the like to link upstairs windows or roofs to other houses/business premesis. Have some sort of rope that needs to be climbed to get in (i doubt zombies have the coordination to shimmy up ropes).You could have a whole potato farm just above the bastards heads. Although i will accept you could come to an embarressing end if you dident tie your rope properly or get lost in the dark and forget where you left it.
In all the ideas posted about possible shelters you could have, this ranks up there as the most misguided and most likely to fail with in a day.
Why would it fail so quickly??
-
Poo and Urine mixed and allowed to ferment form salt peter. Both of those should be found in abundance at any shelter.
Any other stupid questions? Do you really think that ancient europe had access to large amounts of chemicals?
A. where would you get sulfur.
B. do you think that the guns in ancient europe needed as high quality black powder as today chemicals.
C. don't you still need stuff that sets off the charge? that I imagine will be harder to come by.
Poop bullets?
-
Bump
-
I still think that we would be screwed, no matter how much i think of ways to get away.
-
I still think that we would be screwed, no matter how much i think of ways to get away.
Depends if the virus is bound to die out or not.
-
I just realized something, zombie's are walking around with perfectly good meat. As long as you cooked it to the point that the virus' proteins denature you can eat it. I'm wondering how this would effect the planning.
-
I feel like wood isnt the best dissapator of heat... but thats a gorgious case non the less.
And a nice sound system as well.
-
I feel like wood isnt the best dissapator of heat... but thats a gorgious case non the less.
And a nice sound system as well.
If you feel like responding to a post from several months ago, at least quote it.
-
If there really were zombies, they would be most likely caused by a virus. With that said, if the zombie was still living, pumping oxygen throughout its body in order to move around, why would we have to shoot them in the head?
-
If there really were zombies, they would be most likely caused by a virus. With that said, if the zombie was still living, pumping oxygen throughout its body in order to move around, why would we have to shoot them in the head?
We wouldn't/don't. It's just some people try to bring poorly thought out zombie mythos into a real world context.
-
Why can't zombies eat other zombies?
-
There's really no reason why they wouldn't once all the fresh live human meat was gone.
-
There's really no reason why they wouldn't once all the fresh live human meat was gone.
Or even immediately. Why would they distinguish each other from living humans? Normally they explain it as a hunger, and other zombies would appear as food.
-
There's really no reason why they wouldn't once all the fresh live human meat was gone.
Or even immediately. Why would they distinguish each other from living humans? Normally they explain it as a hunger, and other zombies would appear as food.
Maybe Zombies have a moral compass.
-
I just thought of something.
There is no way in hell zombies would ever be able to destroy civilization.
A single M1A1 could take out every last one without any damage at all, and you only need 4 people to crew it. Granted, it's probably a difficult job but I'm sure 4 trained army guys with guns would be able to survive long enough to get to their tank.
Thoughts?
Also;
If you're fighting zombies that are just people with super-rabies go for an assault rifle or similar with pistol because you only have to hit their vitals to kill them.
If you're fighting real zombies grab youself the biggest shotgun you can find and go make mincemeat out of their torsos. Shotgun = biggest damage possible at close range.
-
Fuck shooting their torsos. I've seen them do that in movies, it don't work still.
Even if they can die from being shot elsewhere, I'mma be aiming for the head.
-
Fuck shooting their torsos. I've seen them do that in movies, it don't work still.
Even if they can die from being shot elsewhere, I'mma be aiming for the head.
Agreed. You wont see me trying to knee cap a zombie hoping he wont be able to walk.
-
There's really no reason why they wouldn't once all the fresh live human meat was gone.
Or even immediately. Why would they distinguish each other from living humans? Normally they explain it as a hunger, and other zombies would appear as food.
Well, presumably, they operate on smell, and therefore live human meat smells more like food than dead human meat. That's the only explanation I can think of.
-
In the event that the virus is airborne, or even waterborne, I think we would be fucked. Defending yourself from getting eaten is one thing, bleaching anything that a zombie had touched within the past 24 hours is another.
-
We'd assume the zombie virus wouldn't be airborne, since it'd just kill everyone really fast. Where's the fun?
We COULD hope for spitting zombies, though.
-
If the zombie virus was airborne or waterborne we'd know all about it by now, we can safely discount that for the time being. Zombies are freaks, but still animals. They can recognise their own kind the same way we can, not to mention the smell of a human that only bathes in other humans and the sight of the bastards.
On the other hand, thermite rounds coated in phosphorous would kill and cook them in minutes. Mmm...
-
If the zombie virus was airborne or waterborne we'd know all about it by now, we can safely discount that for the time being. Zombies are freaks, but still animals. They can recognise their own kind the same way we can, not to mention the smell of a human that only bathes in other humans and the sight of the bastards.
On the other hand, thermite rounds coated in phosphorous would kill and cook them in minutes. Mmm...
Did you just say thermite rounds covered in phosphorous? lol
-
Phosphorous ignites, easily, ignites the thermite. The thermite burns slow.
-
Phosphorous ignites, easily, ignites the thermite. The thermite burns slow.
Well, there are a couple problems with that, considering thermite is a powder. That'd be strike one, then you have to consider the mass and the actual burn from the bullet (considering you actually somehow got the bullet to hit the target and not explode into powdery firery goodness in your face) it would give the zombie a small burn purely by the entrance wound from the bullet, probably stopping the bleeding and allowing the zombie to live longer with the wound. It wouldn't cook it, and thermite is alluminum and iron based, it is far too light to make a bullet. You would be sacrificing 100% of your stopping power.
That is why I commented.
-
I accept your criticism and retract my statement. The moron who suggested it to my naive, thermite-ignorant mind will be punished.
-
So do zombies simply bite their victims or eat them? How will they spread the virus if they eat their hosts?
-
They only eat them if they can hold them down.
If the person gets bit but is strong enough to get away from the zombie, they're infected.
-
They only eat them if they can hold them down.
If the person gets bit but is strong enough to get away from the zombie, they're infected.
Hmm, that would add in an odd aspect to the zombie scenario. If a body could be damaged beyond the point of use for the virus then it would be to its benefit to have weaker hosts, who would bite but then be shoved away, the problem is weak hosts would be more likely to be grabbed by the zombie and damaged beyond the virus' ability to use the host. So the new zombies would be constantly becoming stronger and stronger individuals on average (as the weaker ones are killed). This seems like a horrible positive feedback system that would eventually cause the zombies to become killers instead of carriers.
-
LUCKILY being a zombie means you're dead and at loss for advanced motor controls.
-
LUCKILY being a zombie means you're dead and at loss for advanced motor controls.
A 250 lb weight lifter that has you in a bear hug and is biting your neck doesn't really need fine motor skills.
-
No, but how many 250 lb weightlifters are there?
But I do agree that quite a few of them would get turned to zombie pretty quickly.
-
No, but how many 250 lb weightlifters are there?
But I do agree that quite a few of them would get turned to zombie pretty quickly.
That's not my point, my point is that the 250 lb weight lifter while quite effective at getting the disease (he could easily get away from a zombie that bit him) would most likely kill his victims. The more easily you survive getting the disease the less likely it is your victims will do the same. The Strengthave of the population of zombies would have a positive derivative as long as the population of humans was large enough to restock random deaths. Yet as the strength of zombies increases the population growth for zombies will decrease as they kill their victims more often.
It would be an interesting effect.
-
Te wife bought me ead Rising on the Wii for Xmas. It is scaring the crap out of me.
-
But i can run them over with a lawn mower.
-
But i can run them over with a lawn mower.
That's my girlfriend's favorite thing to do, too.
-
But i can run them over with a lawn mower.
That's my girlfriend's favorite thing to do, too.
Just had to go around in the bloody dark. Arris twitching.
-
I enjoyed bashing cash registers on their heads.
If we are speaking of the same game, which I think we are.
It got old after doing that for five minutes.
-
I think Zombies should be contained and eliminated.
But im sure some asshole from the ACLU is gonna go ahead and try to have them "protected" because its a "disease" and it isn't their fault.
The same thing happened with vampires up in Salems Lot back in the 70's and we all know how that turned out.
-
I think Zombies should be contained and eliminated.
But im sure some asshole from the ACLU is gonna go ahead and try to have them "protected" because its a "disease" and it isn't their fault.
That would be murder. We don't exterminate people with AIDS or rabies, so why is this any different (unless it becomes a pandemic outbreak OMGWTFBBQ).
How would you kill the infected. Lock them up in camps until you get around to killing them? Maybe with a gas chamber? What would you tell the families? What would you tell the rest of the world?
Unless zombies become a serious threat to global stability they should be treated like sick people, because that is what they are.
-
I think Zombies should be contained and eliminated.
But im sure some asshole from the ACLU is gonna go ahead and try to have them "protected" because its a "disease" and it isn't their fault.
That would be murder. We don't exterminate people with AIDS or rabies, so why is this any different (unless it becomes a pandemic outbreak OMGWTFBBQ).
How would you kill the infected. Lock them up in camps until you get around to killing them? Maybe with a gas chamber? What would you tell the families? What would you tell the rest of the world?
Unless zombies become a serious threat to global stability they should be treated like sick people, because that is what they are.
See? I win.
-
I think Zombies should be contained and eliminated.
But im sure some asshole from the ACLU is gonna go ahead and try to have them "protected" because its a "disease" and it isn't their fault.
That would be murder. We don't exterminate people with AIDS or rabies, so why is this any different (unless it becomes a pandemic outbreak OMGWTFBBQ).
How would you kill the infected. Lock them up in camps until you get around to killing them? Maybe with a gas chamber? What would you tell the families? What would you tell the rest of the world?
Unless zombies become a serious threat to global stability they should be treated like sick people, because that is what they are.
If someone with AIDS perpetually tries to spread it we kill them for murder. If someone has rabies we pin them down and give them painkillers til they die. Zombies are technically braindead killing them is Euthenizing murderers.
-
It's my opinion that there is a DNA sequence that protects against being zombiefied. We should strive to identify people carrying this sequence and make them the frontline zombie eradicators. A mandatory cheek swab should be enforced immediately.
-
So people with a certain dna will be sent to the front lines to die against the zombies?
This sounds suspiciously like genocide ;)
-
So people with a certain dna will be sent to the front lines to die against the zombies?
This sounds suspiciously like genocide ;)
A better idea would be to quickly breed these people.
-
Sacrifices will have to be made. This is always true in times of great peril.
-
Sacrifices will have to be made. This is always true in times of great peril.
Tje needs of the many and all that jazz.
-
Just cannon fodder or, in this case, zombie spit.
-
I know more about zombies than the rest of you because I live in pittsburgh and have met and spoken with George Romero.
-
I know more about zombies than the rest of you because I live in pittsburgh and have met and spoken with George Romero.
Fail............I work next to a call centre.
-
I know more about zombies than the rest of you because I live in pittsburgh and have met and spoken with George Romero.
Ha, Yankees know nothing about zombies, i.e., I'll bet you have no supply of rooster blood on hand and no blue paint. While these are not sure fire, it can't hurt to strew a little of each about on your thresholds and window sills.
-
I know more about zombies than the rest of you because I live in pittsburgh and have met and spoken with George Romero.
Ha, Yankees know nothing about zombies, i.e., I'll bet you have no supply of rooster blood on hand and no blue paint. While these are not sure fire, it can't hurt to strew a little of each about on your thresholds and window sills.
>:( WE INVENTED ZOMBIES AS YOU KNOW THEM!
-
I know more about zombies than the rest of you because I live in pittsburgh and have met and spoken with George Romero.
Ha, Yankees know nothing about zombies, i.e., I'll bet you have no supply of rooster blood on hand and no blue paint. While these are not sure fire, it can't hurt to strew a little of each about on your thresholds and window sills.
>:( WE INVENTED ZOMBIES AS YOU KNOW THEM!
Who did?
-
I think Zombies should be contained and eliminated.
But im sure some asshole from the ACLU is gonna go ahead and try to have them "protected" because its a "disease" and it isn't their fault.
That would be murder. We don't exterminate people with AIDS or rabies, so why is this any different (unless it becomes a pandemic outbreak OMGWTFBBQ).
How would you kill the infected. Lock them up in camps until you get around to killing them? Maybe with a gas chamber? What would you tell the families? What would you tell the rest of the world?
Unless zombies become a serious threat to global stability they should be treated like sick people, because that is what they are.
If someone with AIDS perpetually tries to spread it we kill them for murder. If someone has rabies we pin them down and give them painkillers til they die. Zombies are technically braindead killing them is Euthenizing murderers.
All true.
But, if someone with AIDS (but a special type of AIDS that won’t kill them, just for this example) perpetually tries to spread it AND is insane, we lock them up and try to make them sane again. If someone has rabies we pin them down and give them painkillers til they die because there is no cure and they will die anyway in a more painful and less dignifying manner. If they weren’t going to die but were still bat shit crazy we would lock them up and keep searching for a cure because their life is worth the effort.
See?
-
Zombies are already dead. They are reanimated corpses with limited brain functionality, and a disease that does kill. I also doubt that during a zombie apocalypse we would be debating the legal quandaries of whether they should be killed. That would be on par with in a time of war demanding that troops find a jury of someone's peers before they fire back because he might be innocent.
There is a difference between defense and justice.
-
George A. Romano Presents
An ACLU Film
In conjunction with liberal americans everywhere
DAWN OF ZOMBIE RIGHTS
-
Zombies are already dead. They are reanimated corpses with limited brain functionality, and a disease that does kill. I also doubt that during a zombie apocalypse we would be debating the legal quandaries of whether they should be killed. That would be on par with in a time of war demanding that troops find a jury of someone's peers before they fire back because he might be innocent.
There is a difference between defense and justice.
Oh. That makes more sense.
I thought we were talking living people with super-rabies or something. And obviously I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't kill them if they try and kill you. I'm just saying that before and after the apocalypse (because obviously the zombies would get owned) they have just as much right to live as any other diseased person.
Unless they actually are reanimated corpses and not infected.
-
Zombies are already dead. They are reanimated corpses with limited brain functionality, and a disease that does kill. I also doubt that during a zombie apocalypse we would be debating the legal quandaries of whether they should be killed. That would be on par with in a time of war demanding that troops find a jury of someone's peers before they fire back because he might be innocent.
There is a difference between defense and justice.
Oh. That makes more sense.
I thought we were talking living people with super-rabies or something. And obviously I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't kill them if they try and kill you. I'm just saying that before and after the apocalypse (because obviously the zombies would get owned) they have just as much right to live as any other diseased person.
Unless they actually are reanimated corpses and not infected.
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
-
We are talking Terri Schiavo but on a killing spree.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
Or we could preserve our own right to life and let all the Zombie sympathizers ( also known as zombie snacks) go talk to them and try to figure out cures.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
Or we could preserve our own right to life and let all the Zombie sympathizers ( also known as zombie snacks) go talk to them and try to figure out cures.
I agree with this.,
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
Or we could preserve our own right to life and let all the Zombie sympathizers ( also known as zombie snacks) go talk to them and try to figure out cures.
I agree with this.,
:-*
-
It's understandable if there are a few hundred of them, but when they start spreading to the major cities it's time to GTFO.
-
i think i will be staying out of the major cities.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
So when we are attacked by another country should we figure out what is wrong with them and try to help them get past their stage of wanting to kill us? People that are trying to kill other people lose their rights. When you pull a gun on a cop you officially forfeit your right to live. Same would apply to becoming a zombie.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
So when we are attacked by another country should we figure out what is wrong with them and try to help them get past their stage of wanting to kill us? People that are trying to kill other people lose their rights. When you pull a gun on a cop you officially forfeit your right to live. Same would apply to becoming a zombie.
But its not their fault. Yes, if they are going to kill you and there really isn't a way around it shoot them. Yes, during the inital outbreak of panic blow their brains out. But after that, when stability has more-or-less returned (because a zombie apocalypse would never actually destroy civilization) then we need to start trying to make them better.
I'm not saying don't kill zombies if you have to. I'm saying when you don't, you shouldn't.
-
It's understandable if there are a few hundred of them,
This.
That's what I'm talking about. After the inital outbreak when we're all fine again we should contain the zombies, not kill them.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
Or we could preserve our own right to life and let all the Zombie sympathizers ( also known as zombie snacks) go talk to them and try to figure out cures.
You do realize I mean locking them up in pens, not trying to make them human again by sitting down for some one-on-one therapy.
I mean herding them into walled areas (a hunk of meat attached to the back of a car would be sufficent bait I think) and keeping them there, then doing medical research on them. You'd just subdue them every time you needed to get at them.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
Or we could preserve our own right to life and let all the Zombie sympathizers ( also known as zombie snacks) go talk to them and try to figure out cures.
You do realize I mean locking them up in pens, not trying to make them human again by sitting down for some one-on-one therapy.
I mean herding them into walled areas (a hunk of meat attached to the back of a car would be sufficent bait I think) and keeping them there, then doing medical research on them. You'd just subdue them every time you needed to get at them.
So you want to herd them into pens, and keep them alive for medical research? How very humane.
Also, what if it is found that the only way to sustain their life is through HUMAN flesh>? then what?
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
So when we are attacked by another country should we figure out what is wrong with them and try to help them get past their stage of wanting to kill us? People that are trying to kill other people lose their rights. When you pull a gun on a cop you officially forfeit your right to live. Same would apply to becoming a zombie.
But its not their fault. Yes, if they are going to kill you and there really isn't a way around it shoot them. Yes, during the inital outbreak of panic blow their brains out. But after that, when stability has more-or-less returned (because a zombie apocalypse would never actually destroy civilization) then we need to start trying to make them better.
I'm not saying don't kill zombies if you have to. I'm saying when you don't, you shouldn't.
If a mentally handicapped person grabs a gun and starts shooting it doesn't matter whether they can help it or not, they are shot.
I don't see this magical point of "after the panic" that you are talking about. Do you mean the zombies will come down and chill? Or we should get used to them and let them eat us? There's no safe way to catch a rabid person with a disease spread through bodily fluids.
Another point, brain dead people don't ever gain their cognitive functions back. Once a zombie permanently a zombie, the non zombie parts of the brain are shut down and killed by the virus while the instructions for being a zombie are left functioning. The person is completely gone and will never return.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
So when we are attacked by another country should we figure out what is wrong with them and try to help them get past their stage of wanting to kill us? People that are trying to kill other people lose their rights. When you pull a gun on a cop you officially forfeit your right to live. Same would apply to becoming a zombie.
But its not their fault. Yes, if they are going to kill you and there really isn't a way around it shoot them. Yes, during the inital outbreak of panic blow their brains out. But after that, when stability has more-or-less returned (because a zombie apocalypse would never actually destroy civilization) then we need to start trying to make them better.
I'm not saying don't kill zombies if you have to. I'm saying when you don't, you shouldn't.
If a mentally handicapped person grabs a gun and starts shooting it doesn't matter whether they can help it or not, they are shot.
I don't see this magical point of "after the panic" that you are talking about. Do you mean the zombies will come down and chill? Or we should get used to them and let them eat us? There's no safe way to catch a rabid person with a disease spread through bodily fluids.
Another point, brain dead people don't ever gain their cognitive functions back. Once a zombie permanently a zombie, the non zombie parts of the brain are shut down and killed by the virus while the instructions for being a zombie are left functioning. The person is completely gone and will never return.
If they can never become human again then they should be killed. End of story.
The panic will end once the military kills most of zombies. Think about it, what would a zombie do to harm a tank?
If a mentally handicapped person grabs a gun and starts shooting it doesn't matter whether they can help it or not, they are shot.
Yes. Because they are a threat. When the zombies are no longer a threat (confined to the countryside etc.) is when we should try to help them.
-
So you want to herd them into pens, and keep them alive for medical research? How very humane.
Research that leads to a possible cure, and no other. More humane than writing them off.
Also, what if it is found that the only way to sustain their life is through HUMAN flesh>? then what?
Then you kill them.
-
So you want to herd them into pens, and keep them alive for medical research? How very humane.
Research that leads to a possible cure, and no other. More humane than writing them off.
Also, what if it is found that the only way to sustain their life is through HUMAN flesh>? then what?
Then you kill them.
So you are saying that we either cure them or kill them?
Isn't there some other alternative we can try besides become one of us or get killed?
Thank you for necrobumping this epic thread, but it's basically kill or be killed.
-
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.
Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
So when we are attacked by another country should we figure out what is wrong with them and try to help them get past their stage of wanting to kill us? People that are trying to kill other people lose their rights. When you pull a gun on a cop you officially forfeit your right to live. Same would apply to becoming a zombie.
But its not their fault. Yes, if they are going to kill you and there really isn't a way around it shoot them. Yes, during the inital outbreak of panic blow their brains out. But after that, when stability has more-or-less returned (because a zombie apocalypse would never actually destroy civilization) then we need to start trying to make them better.
I'm not saying don't kill zombies if you have to. I'm saying when you don't, you shouldn't.
If a mentally handicapped person grabs a gun and starts shooting it doesn't matter whether they can help it or not, they are shot.
I don't see this magical point of "after the panic" that you are talking about. Do you mean the zombies will come down and chill? Or we should get used to them and let them eat us? There's no safe way to catch a rabid person with a disease spread through bodily fluids.
Another point, brain dead people don't ever gain their cognitive functions back. Once a zombie permanently a zombie, the non zombie parts of the brain are shut down and killed by the virus while the instructions for being a zombie are left functioning. The person is completely gone and will never return.
If they can never become human again then they should be killed. End of story.
The panic will end once the military kills most of zombies. Think about it, what would a zombie do to harm a tank?
If a mentally handicapped person grabs a gun and starts shooting it doesn't matter whether they can help it or not, they are shot.
Yes. Because they are a threat. When the zombies are no longer a threat (confined to the countryside etc.) is when we should try to help them.
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
-
Quick poll:
In an open area filled with Z, how much fun would a buster sword be?
-
Not as fun as an Uzi.
-
Not as fun as an Uzi.
not as fun as land mines.
-
Not as fun as if they were people. Pain reactions ftw.
-
Not as fun as if they were people. Pain reactions ftw.
I'd feel bad about killing them slowly if I thought they were suffering.
-
Not as fun as if they were people. Pain reactions ftw.
I'd feel bad about killing them slowly if I thought they were suffering.
What is the point of killing something slowly without them suffering?
-
Not as fun as if they were people. Pain reactions ftw.
I'd feel bad about killing them slowly if I thought they were suffering.
What is the point of killing something slowly without them suffering?
The orgasmic ecstacy of killing? I mean, I'd happily torture a child to death if there was any chance at all of them being a zombie.
-
:-\
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.
Higher reasoning, while great for solving problems, is not necessary for a zombie to function. They are brain dead only in the non zombie regions of the brain.
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.
Higher reasoning, while great for solving problems, is not necessary for a zombie to function. They are brain dead only in the non zombie regions of the brain.
But how do we know? That's my whole point. We don't, and until we do we have no reason to exterminate something that isn't actually a threat and could become human again. It's the same reason they keep terminally ill patients who have a chance of getting better on life support. Sure, they might not get better, but a human life is worth the effort and the money. In this case it could be hundreds or even thousands of human lives. And if it turns out they can't become human again then we haven't exactly lost everything have we?
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.
Higher reasoning, while great for solving problems, is not necessary for a zombie to function. They are brain dead only in the non zombie regions of the brain.
But how do we know? That's my whole point. We don't, and until we do we have no reason to exterminate something that isn't actually a threat and could become human again. It's the same reason they keep terminally ill patients who have a chance of getting better on life support. Sure, they might not get better, but a human life is worth the effort and the money. In this case it could be hundreds or even thousands of human lives. And if it turns out they can't become human again then we haven't exactly lost everything have we?
But we are talking hypothetical zombie attack here and it has been clarified in this thread that zombification works, in at least part, by brain death of non zombie parts of the brain.
Your idea is equivalent to keeping corpses unembalmed because they "might not be completely dead/might get better" Sure statistically that is true, but it is not worth the risk of spreading disease.
-
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.
Higher reasoning, while great for solving problems, is not necessary for a zombie to function. They are brain dead only in the non zombie regions of the brain.
But how do we know? That's my whole point. We don't, and until we do we have no reason to exterminate something that isn't actually a threat and could become human again. It's the same reason they keep terminally ill patients who have a chance of getting better on life support. Sure, they might not get better, but a human life is worth the effort and the money. In this case it could be hundreds or even thousands of human lives. And if it turns out they can't become human again then we haven't exactly lost everything have we?
But we are talking hypothetical zombie attack here and it has been clarified in this thread that zombification works, in at least part, by brain death of non zombie parts of the brain.
Your idea is equivalent to keeping corpses unembalmed because they "might not be completely dead/might get better" Sure statistically that is true, but it is not worth the risk of spreading disease.
WAIT: Are these the living dead or are they infected people?
Living dead: Kill them.
Infected: does it destroy the brain (i.e. physically stop it from functioning in an unrepairable manner)
If yes: Kill them.
If no: How does it make them zombie-like and can we cure it now or soon (next year)?
If we can: Do it/study how to do it until time runs out and then re-evaluate.
If we can't: Kill them.
It is that simple. Keep them confined in compounds and minimize risk of a spread. A concrete wall should do it (they are only zombies) and chuck in meat a few times a day.
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Genocide is fun!
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Australia second then
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Whose fault is that though
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Whose fault is that though
I didn't assign fault, but I'm pretty sure the continent I'm hinting at has had all of those problems for thousands of years, so... weather, primate population, tribal religion and outlooks on life. In that order of course.
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Whose fault is that though
I didn't assign fault, but I'm pretty sure the continent I'm hinting at has had all of those problems for thousands of years, so... weather, primate population, tribal religion and outlooks on life. In that order of course.
3 quarters of the US fits the bill by those standards too.
-
Tell me, how much could you contribute if you were poor, starving and lived in the middle of a desert in a virtually ungoverned badland without acess to clean water, food, health, police or anything.
-
Tell me, how much could you contribute if you were poor, starving and lived in the middle of a desert in a virtually ungoverned badland without acess to clean water, food, health, police or anything.
Given the option, a lot more than most trailer trash would. Didn't you hear about the guy in Ghana (citation needed) who built a walking robot out of old TV parts, having received no formal education in the matter?
"the price we paid was the price men have always paid for achieving a paradise in this life ? we went soft, we lost our edge." - Herbert 1:251
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Whose fault is that though
I didn't assign fault, but I'm pretty sure the continent I'm hinting at has had all of those problems for thousands of years, so... weather, primate population, tribal religion and outlooks on life. In that order of course.
Not really. Small tribal societies have been succeful on their own throughout history. It's the wave of colonialism that followed that did most of the damage.
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Whose fault is that though
I didn't assign fault, but I'm pretty sure the continent I'm hinting at has had all of those problems for thousands of years, so... weather, primate population, tribal religion and outlooks on life. In that order of course.
3 quarters of the US fits the bill by those standards too.
3/4 of the US is full of AIDS Malaria and genocides?
I'm not assigning worth to people, I'm simply stating that these problems exist there and we'd be better off without the problems.
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Whose fault is that though
I didn't assign fault, but I'm pretty sure the continent I'm hinting at has had all of those problems for thousands of years, so... weather, primate population, tribal religion and outlooks on life. In that order of course.
3 quarters of the US fits the bill by those standards too.
3/4 of the US is full of AIDS Malaria and genocides?
I'm not assigning worth to people, I'm simply stating that these problems exist there and we'd be better off without the problems.
No, but they've got deadly weather, primate population and tribal culture.
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Whose fault is that though
I didn't assign fault, but I'm pretty sure the continent I'm hinting at has had all of those problems for thousands of years, so... weather, primate population, tribal religion and outlooks on life. In that order of course.
3 quarters of the US fits the bill by those standards too.
3/4 of the US is full of AIDS Malaria and genocides?
I'm not assigning worth to people, I'm simply stating that these problems exist there and we'd be better off without the problems.
No, but they've got deadly weather, primate population and tribal culture.
RACIST.
-
Well then we are in agreement.
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
Whose fault is that though
I didn't assign fault, but I'm pretty sure the continent I'm hinting at has had all of those problems for thousands of years, so... weather, primate population, tribal religion and outlooks on life. In that order of course.
3 quarters of the US fits the bill by those standards too.
3/4 of the US is full of AIDS Malaria and genocides?
I'm not assigning worth to people, I'm simply stating that these problems exist there and we'd be better off without the problems.
No, but they've got deadly weather, primate population and tribal culture.
So? I said those are the causes of the problems, not the problems. Obviously there are other factors not present here in america. Please debate logically, not pedantically.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
-
also, don't forget Defib, Pills, Medkits, Adrenaline, mollies, and pipebombs.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
-
Lots of old threads popping up.
Must be that Zombie Virus: it's now a zombie COMPUTER virus.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
So we should nuke an entire continent simply for those reasons? Why don't we nuke Australia than?
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
So we should nuke an entire continent simply for those reasons? Why don't we nuke Australia than?
I've been suggesting this for ages!
-
It already doesn't exist.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
We invented nukes, we are completely satisfied with them. We have no reason to make a virus that kills everyone and is uncontrollable yet you claim it is logical that if we make one thing that kills we will automatically progress to something else that you see as worse.
I used your same progression logic to assume that the african continent will continually produce worse and worse viruses, as it has been shown to do, until it produces the same zombie virus.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
We invented nukes, we are completely satisfied with them. We have no reason to make a virus that kills everyone and is uncontrollable yet you claim it is logical that if we make one thing that kills we will automatically progress to something else that you see as worse.
I used your same progression logic to assume that the african continent will continually produce worse and worse viruses, as it has been shown to do, until it produces the same zombie virus.
Why would you assume the same progression? A virus that drives its host species to extinction is genetic suicide, it would take a completely retarded virus for that to happen, and the odds of it surviving this far would be astronomically slim, unless you expect it to evolve in a single generation from another entirely different disease and catch on from there. Your claim makes absolutely no evolutionary sense.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
We invented nukes, we are completely satisfied with them. We have no reason to make a virus that kills everyone and is uncontrollable yet you claim it is logical that if we make one thing that kills we will automatically progress to something else that you see as worse.
I used your same progression logic to assume that the african continent will continually produce worse and worse viruses, as it has been shown to do, until it produces the same zombie virus.
Why would you assume the same progression? A virus that drives its host species to extinction is genetic suicide, it would take a completely retarded virus for that to happen, and the odds of it surviving this far would be astronomically slim, unless you expect it to evolve in a single generation from another entirely different disease and catch on from there. Your claim makes absolutely no evolutionary sense.
a) I was using your logic.
b) I was assuming an animal host where the virus behaves differently.
c) zombie viruses do not kill their host.
-
c) zombie viruses do not kill their host.
You really have no idea what your saying lol.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
We invented nukes, we are completely satisfied with them. We have no reason to make a virus that kills everyone and is uncontrollable yet you claim it is logical that if we make one thing that kills we will automatically progress to something else that you see as worse.
I used your same progression logic to assume that the african continent will continually produce worse and worse viruses, as it has been shown to do, until it produces the same zombie virus.
Why would you assume the same progression? A virus that drives its host species to extinction is genetic suicide, it would take a completely retarded virus for that to happen, and the odds of it surviving this far would be astronomically slim, unless you expect it to evolve in a single generation from another entirely different disease and catch on from there. Your claim makes absolutely no evolutionary sense.
a) I was using your logic.
b) I was assuming an animal host where the virus behaves differently.
c) zombie viruses do not kill their host.
a) You're not using my logic not any other, you're just copying what I say, and replacing people with nature. They don't work in the same way, it's stupid to try and make them and we both know that.
b) So you're looking for an entirely different virus then. In that case well done, there's loads of those in Africa. I'd like to point out, however, that there's hundreds of thousands of other viruses that also fit the bill of affecting animals in ways other than destroying their minds and driving them to cannibalism.
c) They do eventually.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
We invented nukes, we are completely satisfied with them. We have no reason to make a virus that kills everyone and is uncontrollable yet you claim it is logical that if we make one thing that kills we will automatically progress to something else that you see as worse.
I used your same progression logic to assume that the african continent will continually produce worse and worse viruses, as it has been shown to do, until it produces the same zombie virus.
Why would you assume the same progression? A virus that drives its host species to extinction is genetic suicide, it would take a completely retarded virus for that to happen, and the odds of it surviving this far would be astronomically slim, unless you expect it to evolve in a single generation from another entirely different disease and catch on from there. Your claim makes absolutely no evolutionary sense.
a) I was using your logic.
b) I was assuming an animal host where the virus behaves differently.
c) zombie viruses do not kill their host.
a) You're not using my logic not any other, you're just copying what I say, and replacing people with nature. They don't work in the same way, it's stupid to try and make them and we both know that.
b) So you're looking for an entirely different virus then. In that case well done, there's loads of those in Africa. I'd like to point out, however, that there's hundreds of thousands of other viruses that also fit the bill of affecting animals in ways other than destroying their minds and driving them to cannibalism.
c) They do eventually.
a) yes I am. I'm using the logic that making gradually worse things gets you closer to making a zombie virus. (for some random ass reason)
b) No. I'm simply saying a virus could have an animal reservoir where the carriers aren't affected like humans would be. (such as ebola or many other viruses)
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
We invented nukes, we are completely satisfied with them. We have no reason to make a virus that kills everyone and is uncontrollable yet you claim it is logical that if we make one thing that kills we will automatically progress to something else that you see as worse.
I used your same progression logic to assume that the african continent will continually produce worse and worse viruses, as it has been shown to do, until it produces the same zombie virus.
Why would you assume the same progression? A virus that drives its host species to extinction is genetic suicide, it would take a completely retarded virus for that to happen, and the odds of it surviving this far would be astronomically slim, unless you expect it to evolve in a single generation from another entirely different disease and catch on from there. Your claim makes absolutely no evolutionary sense.
a) I was using your logic.
b) I was assuming an animal host where the virus behaves differently.
c) zombie viruses do not kill their host.
a) You're not using my logic not any other, you're just copying what I say, and replacing people with nature. They don't work in the same way, it's stupid to try and make them and we both know that.
b) So you're looking for an entirely different virus then. In that case well done, there's loads of those in Africa. I'd like to point out, however, that there's hundreds of thousands of other viruses that also fit the bill of affecting animals in ways other than destroying their minds and driving them to cannibalism.
c) They do eventually.
a) yes I am. I'm using the logic that making gradually worse things gets you closer to making a zombie virus. (for some random ass reason)
b) No. I'm simply saying a virus could have an animal reservoir where the carriers aren't affected like humans would be. (such as ebola or many other viruses)
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
a) Whose logic is that? The closest thing I can see is my observation that humanity continues to search for cooler and cooler ways to destroy itself, so it would be entirely understandable that a zombie virus would be the final iteration of the doomsday devices.
b) Do any such viruses exist to our knowledge?
c) That is true, my mistake.
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
Grown-ups are talking here, go play in your tire.
-
Oh wow now don't you sound mature :).
by the way i find this little part humorous
"
b) No. I'm simply saying a virus could have an animal reservoir where the carriers aren't affected like humans would be. (such as ebola or many other viruses)"
"
b) Do any such viruses exist to our knowledge?
"
Good job sport. Now go do your homework
-
I meant viruses that have the effects of anything like zombie creation, dipshit. I know viruses can affect different species differently.
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
read the thread.
-
I meant viruses that have the effects of anything like zombie creation, dipshit. I know viruses can affect different species differently.
Because that point was obvious based off what you type :), sorry I can't read your mind little one. Lollipop?
Google it moron.
-
I meant viruses that have the effects of anything like zombie creation, dipshit. I know viruses can affect different species differently.
Because that point was obvious based off what you type :), sorry I can't read your mind little one. Lollipop?
Google it moron.
read the thread.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
We invented nukes, we are completely satisfied with them. We have no reason to make a virus that kills everyone and is uncontrollable yet you claim it is logical that if we make one thing that kills we will automatically progress to something else that you see as worse.
I used your same progression logic to assume that the african continent will continually produce worse and worse viruses, as it has been shown to do, until it produces the same zombie virus.
Why would you assume the same progression? A virus that drives its host species to extinction is genetic suicide, it would take a completely retarded virus for that to happen, and the odds of it surviving this far would be astronomically slim, unless you expect it to evolve in a single generation from another entirely different disease and catch on from there. Your claim makes absolutely no evolutionary sense.
a) I was using your logic.
b) I was assuming an animal host where the virus behaves differently.
c) zombie viruses do not kill their host.
a) You're not using my logic not any other, you're just copying what I say, and replacing people with nature. They don't work in the same way, it's stupid to try and make them and we both know that.
b) So you're looking for an entirely different virus then. In that case well done, there's loads of those in Africa. I'd like to point out, however, that there's hundreds of thousands of other viruses that also fit the bill of affecting animals in ways other than destroying their minds and driving them to cannibalism.
c) They do eventually.
a) yes I am. I'm using the logic that making gradually worse things gets you closer to making a zombie virus. (for some random ass reason)
b) No. I'm simply saying a virus could have an animal reservoir where the carriers aren't affected like humans would be. (such as ebola or many other viruses)
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
a) Whose logic is that? The closest thing I can see is my observation that humanity continues to search for cooler and cooler ways to destroy itself, so it would be entirely understandable that a zombie virus would be the final iteration of the doomsday devices.
b) Do any such viruses exist to our knowledge?
c) That is true, my mistake.
a) we generally don't look for cooler ways, we look for ways that make our fighting more efficient or our enemies less likely to attack. A zombie virus is illegal to research, therefore we can't admit we have it which makes the second one bull, and you then have to fight the zombie horde that is spawned, which also does not make life easier.
b) Yes they do. It is theorized that this happens in ebola. It happened in whatever animal transmitted aids to a human, as the HIV virus shows very different symptoms in a human. And I'm sure given a few hours of time to look I could find quite a few. A virus affects a host by reproducing in certain cells and causing them to die. In different hosts these could be different cells, or different portions of the dna could be surrounding the viral insertion.
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
Yup, and the whole point of a virus is something spreads it. If a dead thing is spreading it for all intents and purposes we can consider the host still alive.
The grownups are talking here.
-
I think it's kind of unfair to simply say "Argh Africa sucks, therefore nukes" because it's kind of like seeing a content child minding his own business, beating the shit out of him and crippling him for life, taking his ice cream away, and than yelling at him 10 years later or not contributing enough to society. The world needs to take responsibility at some point.
No, it's more like seeing a spot in the world so unsuited for living in that it is impossible to sustain agriculture and disease is so rampant that it is affecting the rest of the world and saying "nuke it."
I didn't blame the poverty, the social situations, etc for what is wrong with it, I named the problems that are inherent in the environment and culture.
What about our culture that created nukes in the first place? The one that, in its constant search for ever cooler ways to annihilate ourselves, is probably going to end up creating the zombie-virus in the first place?
So with your logic africa's jungles are just going to spawn worse and worse viruses due to their nature and produce a jungle zombie virus.
...
*rereads post*
What?
We invented nukes, we are completely satisfied with them. We have no reason to make a virus that kills everyone and is uncontrollable yet you claim it is logical that if we make one thing that kills we will automatically progress to something else that you see as worse.
I used your same progression logic to assume that the african continent will continually produce worse and worse viruses, as it has been shown to do, until it produces the same zombie virus.
Why would you assume the same progression? A virus that drives its host species to extinction is genetic suicide, it would take a completely retarded virus for that to happen, and the odds of it surviving this far would be astronomically slim, unless you expect it to evolve in a single generation from another entirely different disease and catch on from there. Your claim makes absolutely no evolutionary sense.
a) I was using your logic.
b) I was assuming an animal host where the virus behaves differently.
c) zombie viruses do not kill their host.
a) You're not using my logic not any other, you're just copying what I say, and replacing people with nature. They don't work in the same way, it's stupid to try and make them and we both know that.
b) So you're looking for an entirely different virus then. In that case well done, there's loads of those in Africa. I'd like to point out, however, that there's hundreds of thousands of other viruses that also fit the bill of affecting animals in ways other than destroying their minds and driving them to cannibalism.
c) They do eventually.
a) yes I am. I'm using the logic that making gradually worse things gets you closer to making a zombie virus. (for some random ass reason)
b) No. I'm simply saying a virus could have an animal reservoir where the carriers aren't affected like humans would be. (such as ebola or many other viruses)
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
a) Whose logic is that? The closest thing I can see is my observation that humanity continues to search for cooler and cooler ways to destroy itself, so it would be entirely understandable that a zombie virus would be the final iteration of the doomsday devices.
b) Do any such viruses exist to our knowledge?
c) That is true, my mistake.
a) we generally don't look for cooler ways, we look for ways that make our fighting more efficient or our enemies less likely to attack. A zombie virus is illegal to research, therefore we can't admit we have it which makes the second one bull, and you then have to fight the zombie horde that is spawned, which also does not make life easier.
b) Yes they do. It is theorized that this happens in ebola. It happened in whatever animal transmitted aids to a human, as the HIV virus shows very different symptoms in a human. And I'm sure given a few hours of time to look I could find quite a few. A virus affects a host by reproducing in certain cells and causing them to die. In different hosts these could be different cells, or different portions of the dna could be surrounding the viral insertion.
a) When we're talking about WMDs, annihilation = cool. We may not be looking for things that are cooler intentionally, but a zombie uprising is more impressive than a nuclear blast, which is in turn more impressive than catapulting a disease-ridden horse corpse over the wall of your town, which is in turn more awesome than whatever used devious means to kill people in large numbers before that.
b) I don't mean viruses that give different species different symptoms, arguing that those don't exist is like arguing the Earth is flat, only I'd be wrong in addition to being grotesquely outnumbered. I mean any diseases which have been known to cause anything even approaching the effects expected in a zombie virus in any species. Toxoplasmosis Gondii has been shown to alter the behaviour of rats it infects, but it displays no symptoms at all in humans (50% of the worlds population is infected, if an effective strain was to evolve we'd all be fairly resistant anyway) and the effects are suicide, rather than homicide. That's still centuries away from possibly displaying the symptoms you're looking for and isn't an African thing.
-
ah
well
1) Cooler isn't more impressive, we look for controlled destruction now days. Bunker busters instead of nukes, smart bombs instead of carpet bombing etc.
2) I was just arguing that africa is a craphole and bombing it would be beneficial, not really anything about the zombie debate. I doubt a virus could cause a zombie like state very easily, but a parasite would be much more effective. You are correct that parasites generally induce suicidal tendencies as opposed to homicidal ones, but a parasite easily becomes a gland producing hormones that will alter our behavior. Simply up the aggression in a person until they are constantly attacking people, block the hormones like serotonin that let us be close to others, and shut down the parts of the brain that deal with empathy and you readily have a person constantly coming into bodily fluid contact with others to spread the eggs. The kicker is a lowering of intelligence would reduce the chance that they'd attack from longer range, and making the person perpetually hungry would increase their chances of biting/trying to eat people.
-
2) I was just arguing that africa is a craphole and bombing it would be beneficial, not really anything about the zombie debate. I doubt a virus could cause a zombie like state very easily, but a parasite would be much more effective. You are correct that parasites generally induce suicidal tendencies as opposed to homicidal ones, but a parasite easily becomes a gland producing hormones that will alter our behavior. Simply up the aggression in a person until they are constantly attacking people, block the hormones like serotonin that let us be close to others, and shut down the parts of the brain that deal with empathy and you readily have a person constantly coming into bodily fluid contact with others to spread the eggs. The kicker is a lowering of intelligence would reduce the chance that they'd attack from longer range, and making the person perpetually hungry would increase their chances of biting/trying to eat people.
So there is still hope?
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
Yup, and the whole point of a virus is something spreads it. If a dead thing is spreading it for all intents and purposes we can consider the host still alive.
The grownups are talking here.
Notice I specifically said clinically dead, good job.
The intelligent people are talking here.
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
Yup, and the whole point of a virus is something spreads it. If a dead thing is spreading it for all intents and purposes we can consider the host still alive.
The grownups are talking here.
Notice I specifically said clinically dead, good job.
The intelligent people are talking here.
And yet you keep interrupting. We've been through this numerous times over the course of the thread, they're alive. Unless (this is the theory of someone who knows nothing of what they propose so if there's any glaring logical holes... fuck off) what if it were a fungal infection? The fungus could permeate the skin, using CO2 from both the atmosphere and the respiratory/circulatory system and light for photosynthesis, creating just enough glucose and oxygen for the animal part to survive. This way the host can be braindead and still function under the control of the infection, or be completely dead and still have a good degree of functioning tissue (if the blood fails to circulate there will still be some matter diffusing into the muscle) and this avoids the issue of the muscles respiring anaerobically and melting. Of course there wouldn't be enough to handle strenuous exercise, the body will eventually break down either as a result of very gradual lactic acid buildup or bacteria in dead tissue moving on to devour the tissue still in use. This would be a reason for the infection to impair motor skills (preventing actions like running, climbing or lifting great weights), dying intercostal muscles relaxing and blasting air out of the lungs could cause moaning noises for some time and hell, the chlorophyll would even turn the skin green. Classic movie zombie.
I realised as I typed this that any body part not getting enough sunlight is going to end up slowly killing the rest of the body via crush syndrome and the myriad problems that arise when we take the nervous system into the equation generally, so the body would still need to be alive, though the host could last some time brain-dead.
Contributions to my little hypothesis are welcome.
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
Yup, and the whole point of a virus is something spreads it. If a dead thing is spreading it for all intents and purposes we can consider the host still alive.
The grownups are talking here.
Notice I specifically said clinically dead, good job.
The intelligent people are talking here.
And yet you keep interrupting. We've been through this numerous times over the course of the thread, they're alive. Unless (this is the theory of someone who knows nothing of what they propose so if there's any glaring logical holes... fuck off) what if it were a fungal infection? The fungus could permeate the skin, using CO2 from both the atmosphere and the respiratory/circulatory system and light for photosynthesis, creating just enough glucose and oxygen for the animal part to survive. This way the host can be braindead and still function under the control of the infection, or be completely dead and still have a good degree of functioning tissue (if the blood fails to circulate there will still be some matter diffusing into the muscle) and this avoids the issue of the muscles respiring anaerobically and melting. Of course there wouldn't be enough to handle strenuous exercise, the body will eventually break down either as a result of very gradual lactic acid buildup or bacteria in dead tissue moving on to devour the tissue still in use. This would be a reason for the infection to impair motor skills (preventing actions like running, climbing or lifting great weights), dying intercostal muscles relaxing and blasting air out of the lungs could cause moaning noises for some time and hell, the chlorophyll would even turn the skin green. Classic movie zombie.
I realised as I typed this that any body part not getting enough sunlight is going to end up slowly killing the rest of the body via crush syndrome and the myriad problems that arise when we take the nervous system into the equation generally, so the body would still need to be alive, though the host could last some time brain-dead.
Contributions to my little hypothesis are welcome.
You're wrong. Is that enough contribution? What are we calling Dead here? If it moves it isn't dead? Because that is a gross misconception.
-
*sigh* I gave two possibilities which could easily both be referred to as dead (indeed, I referred to them as such) in that paragraph, so I know you didn't even read it. Second, read the motherfucking thread to see why what you think is wrong.
-
*sigh* I gave two possibilities which could easily both be referred to as dead (indeed, I referred to them as such) in that paragraph, so I know you didn't even read it. Second, read the motherfucking thread to see why what you think is wrong.
I read the Zombie Survival Guide and Z-Day, therefore your argument is invalid. Congratulations. You're wrong, I'm right, your theories are just as made up as anyone elses.
-
*sigh* I gave two possibilities which could easily both be referred to as dead (indeed, I referred to them as such) in that paragraph, so I know you didn't even read it. Second, read the motherfucking thread to see why what you think is wrong.
I read the Zombie Survival Guide and Z-Day, therefore your argument is invalid. Congratulations. You're wrong, I'm right, your theories are just as made up as anyone elses.
Those are both utter fantasy, with zombies that can only be explained by some sort of magic. These things survive on no fuel whatsoever, not even air? If such life could exist it already would, and not just on Earth. The solar system would be chock-full of the little inexplicable bastards.
-
*sigh* I gave two possibilities which could easily both be referred to as dead (indeed, I referred to them as such) in that paragraph, so I know you didn't even read it. Second, read the motherfucking thread to see why what you think is wrong.
I read the Zombie Survival Guide and Z-Day, therefore your argument is invalid. Congratulations. You're wrong, I'm right, your theories are just as made up as anyone elses.
Those are both utter fantasy, with zombies that can only be explained by some sort of magic. These things survive on no fuel whatsoever, not even air? If such life could exist it already would, and not just on Earth. The solar system would be chock-full of the little inexplicable bastards.
Thats what im calling your theory, utter fantasy. Your saying that the only things that exist in this world already exist on Earth? That is a pretty stupid comment. New things are created and discovered every day. Don't be so closed-minded bro :).
-
*sigh* I gave two possibilities which could easily both be referred to as dead (indeed, I referred to them as such) in that paragraph, so I know you didn't even read it. Second, read the motherfucking thread to see why what you think is wrong.
I read the Zombie Survival Guide and Z-Day, therefore your argument is invalid. Congratulations. You're wrong, I'm right, your theories are just as made up as anyone elses.
Those are both utter fantasy, with zombies that can only be explained by some sort of magic. These things survive on no fuel whatsoever, not even air? If such life could exist it already would, and not just on Earth. The solar system would be chock-full of the little inexplicable bastards.
Thats what im calling your theory, utter fantasy. Your saying that the only things that exist in this world already exist on Earth? That is a pretty stupid comment. New things are created and discovered every day. Don't be so closed-minded bro :).
Nothing that contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, Admiral.
-
*sigh* I gave two possibilities which could easily both be referred to as dead (indeed, I referred to them as such) in that paragraph, so I know you didn't even read it. Second, read the motherfucking thread to see why what you think is wrong.
I read the Zombie Survival Guide and Z-Day, therefore your argument is invalid. Congratulations. You're wrong, I'm right, your theories are just as made up as anyone elses.
Those are both utter fantasy, with zombies that can only be explained by some sort of magic. These things survive on no fuel whatsoever, not even air? If such life could exist it already would, and not just on Earth. The solar system would be chock-full of the little inexplicable bastards.
Thats what im calling your theory, utter fantasy. Your saying that the only things that exist in this world already exist on Earth? That is a pretty stupid comment. New things are created and discovered every day. Don't be so closed-minded bro :).
Nothing that contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, Admiral.
Unless I break it.
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
Yup, and the whole point of a virus is something spreads it. If a dead thing is spreading it for all intents and purposes we can consider the host still alive.
The grownups are talking here.
Notice I specifically said clinically dead, good job.
The intelligent people are talking here.
No, you were simply being pedantic. A person being dead is only relevant to the spread of the virus if they stop spreading it. Thank you for bringing unrelated chatter into the convo, no one cares the satus of live/dead in a zombie, but a clinically dead zombie is impossible. Please shut up and think for a minute, the intelligent people are talking here.
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
Yup, and the whole point of a virus is something spreads it. If a dead thing is spreading it for all intents and purposes we can consider the host still alive.
The grownups are talking here.
Notice I specifically said clinically dead, good job.
The intelligent people are talking here.
No, you were simply being pedantic. A person being dead is only relevant to the spread of the virus if they stop spreading it. Thank you for bringing unrelated chatter into the convo, no one cares the satus of live/dead in a zombie, but a clinically dead zombie is impossible. Please shut up and think for a minute, the intelligent people are talking here.
I do hope you know what clinically dead is :).
-
c) that is irrelevant since the virus will be spread for a long period of time. Killing the host is only bad if it is done quickly, otherwise it gives it plenty of time to spread. And with a zombie even post mortem the virus can spread eliminating that disadvantage.
To answer my previous self-question of "is this person really this dumb?"
Answer is yes.
The whole point of zombies is that the whole. DEAD COMING BACK TO LIFE THING. So clinically the host is dead the moment the virus takes hold of them.
Yup, and the whole point of a virus is something spreads it. If a dead thing is spreading it for all intents and purposes we can consider the host still alive.
The grownups are talking here.
Notice I specifically said clinically dead, good job.
The intelligent people are talking here.
No, you were simply being pedantic. A person being dead is only relevant to the spread of the virus if they stop spreading it. Thank you for bringing unrelated chatter into the convo, no one cares the satus of live/dead in a zombie, but a clinically dead zombie is impossible. Please shut up and think for a minute, the intelligent people are talking here.
I do hope you know what clinically dead is :).
He does. Read back some, there was a long debate about it and we came to the conclusion that zombies can't be clinically dead and that they can't be anything like Max Brooks claims they are. The only possibility that lends your claims anything like a shred of credibility is my idea of a fungal infection, and you deliberately ignored that to spout drivel straight from that hack.
-
Because obviously you two "Scientists" here know everything that is possible and isn't :). I take joy in your ignorance <3.
-
Because obviously you two "Scientists" here know everything that is possible and isn't :). I take joy in your ignorance <3.
So care to explain to me how a zombie's muscles would work without a beating heart? Oxygen can diffuse through tissue only up to 2 centimeters and still have a high enough concentration to keep cells functioning. They would also need atp to function.
To keep a human body moving for extended periods of time it can not be clinically dead. This is not up for debate.
-
Because obviously you two "Scientists" here know everything that is possible and isn't :). I take joy in your ignorance <3.
So care to explain to me how a zombie's muscles would work without a beating heart? Oxygen can diffuse through tissue only up to 2 centimeters and still have a high enough concentration to keep cells functioning. They would also need atp to function.
To keep a human body moving for extended periods of time it can not be clinically dead. This is not up for debate.
He's banned, there's no point addressing him now.
-
Because obviously you two "Scientists" here know everything that is possible and isn't :). I take joy in your ignorance <3.
So care to explain to me how a zombie's muscles would work without a beating heart? Oxygen can diffuse through tissue only up to 2 centimeters and still have a high enough concentration to keep cells functioning. They would also need atp to function.
To keep a human body moving for extended periods of time it can not be clinically dead. This is not up for debate.
He's banned, there's no point addressing him now.
I figured.
-
Ok, so what if the zombies were made by some sort of wizard? Then they could have all of the symptoms of classic zombies, or the more modern sprinting zombie. It wouldn't really matter, because the alien wizard could do whatever he wanted with the bodies. The people could be dead, or they could be alive. It would work no matter what. Poke holes in that, science!
-
Ok, so what if the zombies were made by some sort of wizard? Then they could have all of the symptoms of classic zombies, or the more modern sprinting zombie. It wouldn't really matter, because the alien wizard could do whatever he wanted with the bodies. The people could be dead, or they could be alive. It would work no matter what. Poke holes in that, science!
I must have missed the peer-reviewed study confirming the existence of wizards, I'll go have a look for it.
-
Ok, so what if the zombies were made by some sort of wizard? Then they could have all of the symptoms of classic zombies, or the more modern sprinting zombie. It wouldn't really matter, because the alien wizard could do whatever he wanted with the bodies. The people could be dead, or they could be alive. It would work no matter what. Poke holes in that, science!
I must have missed the peer-reviewed study confirming the existence of wizards, I'll go have a look for it.
Look no further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_%28fantasy%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_%28fantasy%29)
-
Ok, so what if the zombies were made by some sort of wizard? Then they could have all of the symptoms of classic zombies, or the more modern sprinting zombie. It wouldn't really matter, because the alien wizard could do whatever he wanted with the bodies. The people could be dead, or they could be alive. It would work no matter what. Poke holes in that, science!
I must have missed the peer-reviewed study confirming the existence of wizards, I'll go have a look for it.
(http://i35.tinypic.com/mm4inb.jpg)
blue wizard says otherwise
-
Ok, so what if the zombies were made by some sort of wizard? Then they could have all of the symptoms of classic zombies, or the more modern sprinting zombie. It wouldn't really matter, because the alien wizard could do whatever he wanted with the bodies. The people could be dead, or they could be alive. It would work no matter what. Poke holes in that, science!
I must have missed the peer-reviewed study confirming the existence of wizards, I'll go have a look for it.
[img]
blue wizard says otherwise
I believe that is an image of the black mage.
-
Ok, so what if the zombies were made by some sort of wizard? Then they could have all of the symptoms of classic zombies, or the more modern sprinting zombie. It wouldn't really matter, because the alien wizard could do whatever he wanted with the bodies. The people could be dead, or they could be alive. It would work no matter what. Poke holes in that, science!
I must have missed the peer-reviewed study confirming the existence of wizards, I'll go have a look for it.
[img]
blue wizard says otherwise
I believe that is an image of the black mage.
I believe you need to play less rpgs
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
-
The only sensible cure for zombies is fire, and lots of it!
-
The only sensible cure for zombies is fire, and lots of it!
According to the Dawn of the Dead remake, it just makes them smell like shit for the next few days :P. Need a lot more fire then just a molotov i suppose.
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
The only cure is .50 calibers worth of aspirin to the head delivered at high speeds to treat that lingering headache they all seem to have.
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
The only cure is .50 calibers worth of aspirin to the head delivered at high speeds to treat that lingering headache they all seem to have.
>Implying a .22 wouldn't get the job done even better, cheaper, and a bullet with more quantity and use.
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
The only cure is .50 calibers worth of aspirin to the head delivered at high speeds to treat that lingering headache they all seem to have.
>Implying a .22 wouldn't get the job done even better, cheaper, and a bullet with more quantity and use.
When penetrating a skull is the difference between life or death I wouldn't want to take the chance on hitting it at a bad angle, or having the bullet skim the brain leaving it mobile.
A .50 caliber would go right through the skull no matter the angle, and I was making a point, not giving advice on bullet practicality.
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
The only cure is .50 calibers worth of aspirin to the head delivered at high speeds to treat that lingering headache they all seem to have.
>Implying a .22 wouldn't get the job done even better, cheaper, and a bullet with more quantity and use.
When penetrating a skull is the difference between life or death I wouldn't want to take the chance on hitting it at a bad angle, or having the bullet skim the brain leaving it mobile.
A .50 caliber would go right through the skull no matter the angle, and I was making a point, not giving advice on bullet practicality.
A .22 shatters and skatters as it enters the skull. A .50 cal will leave a hole in their head, cool. A .22 will turn their brain into mush.
And if your talking about poor marksmanship skills, its harder to shoot a .50 cal compared to a .22 sooo yeah. :D
.22 > .50 for practicality as well as results :).
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
The only cure is .50 calibers worth of aspirin to the head delivered at high speeds to treat that lingering headache they all seem to have.
>Implying a .22 wouldn't get the job done even better, cheaper, and a bullet with more quantity and use.
When penetrating a skull is the difference between life or death I wouldn't want to take the chance on hitting it at a bad angle, or having the bullet skim the brain leaving it mobile.
A .50 caliber would go right through the skull no matter the angle, and I was making a point, not giving advice on bullet practicality.
A .22 shatters and skatters as it enters the skull. A .50 cal will leave a hole in their head, cool. A .22 will turn their brain into mush.
And if your talking about poor marksmanship skills, its harder to shoot a .50 cal compared to a .22 sooo yeah. :D
.22 > .50 for practicality as well as results :).
Lol. Wow. No.
A .22 will only penetrate a skull from certain angles. Meaning if you hit at a bad angle it does nothing. A .50 caliber will blow half the head clean off. The exit would is usually about the size of the back of the skull. In your terms that would mean "the whole head turns to moosh" And while a .22 long round from close range will enter the brain there is no guarantee it will make it through the skull at longer distances.
But again, I am not recommending the .50 caliber at all. There are many guns with much higher capacities than a .50 and a lot more power than the .22. Naming the two extremes and arguing over which is better is like trying to figure out whether to use a hammer or a foam bat to open a door. Neither is the right tool.
-
I've always found larger calibers easier to work with, so I'm happy with my .762s.
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
The only cure is .50 calibers worth of aspirin to the head delivered at high speeds to treat that lingering headache they all seem to have.
>Implying a .22 wouldn't get the job done even better, cheaper, and a bullet with more quantity and use.
When penetrating a skull is the difference between life or death I wouldn't want to take the chance on hitting it at a bad angle, or having the bullet skim the brain leaving it mobile.
A .50 caliber would go right through the skull no matter the angle, and I was making a point, not giving advice on bullet practicality.
A .22 shatters and skatters as it enters the skull. A .50 cal will leave a hole in their head, cool. A .22 will turn their brain into mush.
And if your talking about poor marksmanship skills, its harder to shoot a .50 cal compared to a .22 sooo yeah. :D
.22 > .50 for practicality as well as results :).
Lol. Wow. No.
A .22 will only penetrate a skull from certain angles. Meaning if you hit at a bad angle it does nothing. A .50 caliber will blow half the head clean off. The exit would is usually about the size of the back of the skull. In your terms that would mean "the whole head turns to moosh" And while a .22 long round from close range will enter the brain there is no guarantee it will make it through the skull at longer distances.
But again, I am not recommending the .50 caliber at all. There are many guns with much higher capacities than a .50 and a lot more power than the .22. Naming the two extremes and arguing over which is better is like trying to figure out whether to use a hammer or a foam bat to open a door. Neither is the right tool.
Why do you need more power 0.o, a .22 is more than enough to pierce the skull.... You shouldn't be wasting ammo at longer ranges anyway, .22 is more plentiful then any ammo type youll probably care to mention that has "high-firepower".
A .22 isn't an extreme, its one of the best choices. A .50 cal is just some kids wet dream of somehow getting a good military grade rifle for a zombie invasion which is highly doubtful. You shouldn't be shooting anything out of the .22's effective range, and if your that bad at shooting a gun that you can't make a good entrance wound at that range, your better off running than shooting.
I've always found larger calibers easier to work with, so I'm happy with my .762s.
Usually new comers to guns complain about recoil, a .22 has little to no recoil compared to a .50 caliber. If you don't have that thing into your shoulder right, you could bust your entire arm <.<
-
How long do you think newcomers will last in a zombie outbreak? Also, .762 ammo is likely to be more plentiful in most parts of the world, AK47s and whatnot. How many .22 rifles are in common use?
-
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
The only cure is .50 calibers worth of aspirin to the head delivered at high speeds to treat that lingering headache they all seem to have.
>Implying a .22 wouldn't get the job done even better, cheaper, and a bullet with more quantity and use.
When penetrating a skull is the difference between life or death I wouldn't want to take the chance on hitting it at a bad angle, or having the bullet skim the brain leaving it mobile.
A .50 caliber would go right through the skull no matter the angle, and I was making a point, not giving advice on bullet practicality.
A .22 shatters and skatters as it enters the skull. A .50 cal will leave a hole in their head, cool. A .22 will turn their brain into mush.
And if your talking about poor marksmanship skills, its harder to shoot a .50 cal compared to a .22 sooo yeah. :D
.22 > .50 for practicality as well as results :).
Lol. Wow. No.
A .22 will only penetrate a skull from certain angles. Meaning if you hit at a bad angle it does nothing. A .50 caliber will blow half the head clean off. The exit would is usually about the size of the back of the skull. In your terms that would mean "the whole head turns to moosh" And while a .22 long round from close range will enter the brain there is no guarantee it will make it through the skull at longer distances.
But again, I am not recommending the .50 caliber at all. There are many guns with much higher capacities than a .50 and a lot more power than the .22. Naming the two extremes and arguing over which is better is like trying to figure out whether to use a hammer or a foam bat to open a door. Neither is the right tool.
Why do you need more power 0.o, a .22 is more than enough to pierce the skull.... You shouldn't be wasting ammo at longer ranges anyway, .22 is more plentiful then any ammo type youll probably care to mention that has "high-firepower".
A .22 isn't an extreme, its one of the best choices. A .50 cal is just some kids wet dream of somehow getting a good military grade rifle for a zombie invasion which is highly doubtful. You shouldn't be shooting anything out of the .22's effective range, and if your that bad at shooting a gun that you can't make a good entrance wound at that range, your better off running than shooting.
I've always found larger calibers easier to work with, so I'm happy with my .762s.
Usually new comers to guns complain about recoil, a .22 has little to no recoil compared to a .50 caliber. If you don't have that thing into your shoulder right, you could bust your entire arm <.<
"Why do you need more power 0.o, a .22 is more than enough to pierce the skull...."
No, it does not. And you would work at longer ranges to keep those nasty zombies from clawing you. It is an extreme because other than the .17hmr I can not name a smaller round off the top of my head. Though the .17 has a bit more penetrating power, and does everything you claim the .22 does but better. It's lighter, you can carry more etc etc.
-
How long do you think newcomers will last in a zombie outbreak? Also, .762 ammo is likely to be more plentiful in most parts of the world, AK47s and whatnot. How many .22 rifles are in common use?
I'm talking about the average civilian area, not a military grade installation <.<. Sure some avid gun collectors with have a nice assortment of weaponry but I've seen a lot more .22 ammunition (its small, easily massable, etc.) then an M4's 5.56, AK's 7.62 (Many versions of the AK exist so whatever other ammunition you want to include).
I would assume the people that survive are the ones that are fit, in shape, can outrun others, can survive on their own, scavenge food and supplies, etc. would survive, and the average dumbass "I have a .50 cal lemme go on a killing spree" will actually die first. So at least we'll have people who understand its a test of survival and not killing everything in sight....
Final Fantasy came out in 1987, what else was I supposed to do when I was 5?
Play outside like a normal child.
To bring this back on topic, prepare for a zombie invasion.
Yeah and everyone listen to Raist, obviously then we will have some kind of chance of making it out with a cure.
The only cure is .50 calibers worth of aspirin to the head delivered at high speeds to treat that lingering headache they all seem to have.
>Implying a .22 wouldn't get the job done even better, cheaper, and a bullet with more quantity and use.
When penetrating a skull is the difference between life or death I wouldn't want to take the chance on hitting it at a bad angle, or having the bullet skim the brain leaving it mobile.
A .50 caliber would go right through the skull no matter the angle, and I was making a point, not giving advice on bullet practicality.
A .22 shatters and skatters as it enters the skull. A .50 cal will leave a hole in their head, cool. A .22 will turn their brain into mush.
And if your talking about poor marksmanship skills, its harder to shoot a .50 cal compared to a .22 sooo yeah. :D
.22 > .50 for practicality as well as results :).
Lol. Wow. No.
A .22 will only penetrate a skull from certain angles. Meaning if you hit at a bad angle it does nothing. A .50 caliber will blow half the head clean off. The exit would is usually about the size of the back of the skull. In your terms that would mean "the whole head turns to moosh" And while a .22 long round from close range will enter the brain there is no guarantee it will make it through the skull at longer distances.
But again, I am not recommending the .50 caliber at all. There are many guns with much higher capacities than a .50 and a lot more power than the .22. Naming the two extremes and arguing over which is better is like trying to figure out whether to use a hammer or a foam bat to open a door. Neither is the right tool.
Why do you need more power 0.o, a .22 is more than enough to pierce the skull.... You shouldn't be wasting ammo at longer ranges anyway, .22 is more plentiful then any ammo type youll probably care to mention that has "high-firepower".
A .22 isn't an extreme, its one of the best choices. A .50 cal is just some kids wet dream of somehow getting a good military grade rifle for a zombie invasion which is highly doubtful. You shouldn't be shooting anything out of the .22's effective range, and if your that bad at shooting a gun that you can't make a good entrance wound at that range, your better off running than shooting.
I've always found larger calibers easier to work with, so I'm happy with my .762s.
Usually new comers to guns complain about recoil, a .22 has little to no recoil compared to a .50 caliber. If you don't have that thing into your shoulder right, you could bust your entire arm <.<
"Why do you need more power 0.o, a .22 is more than enough to pierce the skull...."
No, it does not. And you would work at longer ranges to keep those nasty zombies from clawing you. It is an extreme because other than the .17hmr I can not name a smaller round off the top of my head. Though the .17 has a bit more penetrating power, and does everything you claim the .22 does but better. It's lighter, you can carry more etc etc.
You really don't know how to conserve ammunition if you don't know what range im talking about.
".22 LR is effective within 150 meters (495 ft)" - Wikipedia .22 Long rifle
If you are going to spend the ammunition killing something to keep it away from you, it should be at least half of that range. 75 meters is more than enough space for you to run rather than waste ammo killing something you can avoid.
Note: I've also seen .22 ammo more plentiful then .17, im not saying the smallest caliber is the best, its the best of all aspects, enough power, enough quanitity, small enough, etc.
-
Jesus christ. Do you read?
We are talking about it penetrating a skull. Something I've done quite a bit with a .22. Not any human skulls but it is the same dynamic. I know for a fact that animals slightly smaller than a human, with equally thin skulls, can stop a .22 bullet with their skull if hit at the right angle at close range.
At medium range the bullet is still "effective" meaning it hasn't dropped to subsonic speeds and lost its accuracy. Yes I know the range of a .22, considering I've been shooting my henry lever action .22 since I got it at the age of 8. A nice gun, all wood and metal so it has enough weight to keep it accurate. It won't bounce in your hand, and I've killed enough animals with it to know what it can do. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would never rely on it for something charging me. Hitting the head would be impossible and torso shots with a .22 won't do much more than slow an angry raccoon. I'd hate to see how little it affects a zombie.
-
Jesus christ. Do you read?
We are talking about it penetrating a skull. Something I've done quite a bit with a .22. Not any human skulls but it is the same dynamic. I know for a fact that animals slightly smaller than a human, with equally thin skulls, can stop a .22 bullet with their skull if hit at the right angle at close range.
At medium range the bullet is still "effective" meaning it hasn't dropped to subsonic speeds and lost its accuracy. Yes I know the range of a .22, considering I've been shooting my henry lever action .22 since I got it at the age of 8. A nice gun, all wood and metal so it has enough weight to keep it accurate. It won't bounce in your hand, and I've killed enough animals with it to know what it can do. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would never rely on it for something charging me. Hitting the head would be impossible and torso shots with a .22 won't do much more than slow an angry raccoon. I'd hate to see how little it affects a zombie.
So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me :).
-
Jesus christ. Do you read?
We are talking about it penetrating a skull. Something I've done quite a bit with a .22. Not any human skulls but it is the same dynamic. I know for a fact that animals slightly smaller than a human, with equally thin skulls, can stop a .22 bullet with their skull if hit at the right angle at close range.
At medium range the bullet is still "effective" meaning it hasn't dropped to subsonic speeds and lost its accuracy. Yes I know the range of a .22, considering I've been shooting my henry lever action .22 since I got it at the age of 8. A nice gun, all wood and metal so it has enough weight to keep it accurate. It won't bounce in your hand, and I've killed enough animals with it to know what it can do. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would never rely on it for something charging me. Hitting the head would be impossible and torso shots with a .22 won't do much more than slow an angry raccoon. I'd hate to see how little it affects a zombie.
So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me :).
If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
I'm not saying I would survive, but the zombie simply has to bite you for it not to matter.
Have you ever shot a running target?
-
Jesus christ. Do you read?
We are talking about it penetrating a skull. Something I've done quite a bit with a .22. Not any human skulls but it is the same dynamic. I know for a fact that animals slightly smaller than a human, with equally thin skulls, can stop a .22 bullet with their skull if hit at the right angle at close range.
At medium range the bullet is still "effective" meaning it hasn't dropped to subsonic speeds and lost its accuracy. Yes I know the range of a .22, considering I've been shooting my henry lever action .22 since I got it at the age of 8. A nice gun, all wood and metal so it has enough weight to keep it accurate. It won't bounce in your hand, and I've killed enough animals with it to know what it can do. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would never rely on it for something charging me. Hitting the head would be impossible and torso shots with a .22 won't do much more than slow an angry raccoon. I'd hate to see how little it affects a zombie.
So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me :).
If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
I'm not saying I would survive, but the zombie simply has to bite you for it not to matter.
Have you ever shot a running target?
Can you..... not read or something?
.22 != a heavy rifle
.50 == Heavy rifle
So you proved yourself wrong, congratulations.
Also, usually zombies entail shamblers, but if were going 28 days later esque, id rather have a close range weapon such as a 12 gauge then a .50 calibre if they can close their distance that quickly.
So either way a .50 cal is still not a good weapon to keep around in either case if your smart about your ammo consumption.
-
They're too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, which would be why they're using a .22 and would mean they're not a very good shot.
-
They're too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, which would be why they're using a .22 and would mean they're not a very good shot.
I'd take my .22 over anything else because of how light, how much ammo i could find, and how useful it is. I can shoot the rifle with one hand if i have to. leave my other hand open for anything else i may need it for.
Zombies arn't about being a good shot, its about traveling light, quickly, and avoiding bad situations. Not going in guns blazing.
Note: most of the time when your on the move, your going to want light weapons. If its a last stand sort of thing then be my guest, i plan on bolting in a machine gun on the bed of my friends truck. But if were talking about on the move looking for supplies which is what your gonna be doing most of the time. A light weapon is your best friend.
-
They're too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, which would be why they're using a .22 and would mean they're not a very good shot.
I'd take my .22 over anything else because of how light, how much ammo i could find, and how useful it is. I can shoot the rifle with one hand if i have to. leave my other hand open for anything else i may need it for.
Zombies arn't about being a good shot, its about traveling light, quickly, and avoiding bad situations. Not going in guns blazing.
Note: most of the time when your on the move, your going to want light weapons. If its a last stand sort of thing then be my guest, i plan on bolting in a machine gun on the bed of my friends truck. But if were talking about on the move looking for supplies which is what your gonna be doing most of the time. A light weapon is your best friend.
Interesting plan. Can I ask, however, why you quoted me if you weren't going to respond to my point?
-
They're too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, which would be why they're using a .22 and would mean they're not a very good shot.
I'd take my .22 over anything else because of how light, how much ammo i could find, and how useful it is. I can shoot the rifle with one hand if i have to. leave my other hand open for anything else i may need it for.
Zombies arn't about being a good shot, its about traveling light, quickly, and avoiding bad situations. Not going in guns blazing.
Note: most of the time when your on the move, your going to want light weapons. If its a last stand sort of thing then be my guest, i plan on bolting in a machine gun on the bed of my friends truck. But if were talking about on the move looking for supplies which is what your gonna be doing most of the time. A light weapon is your best friend.
Interesting plan. Can I ask, however, why you quoted me if you weren't going to respond to my point?
You assumed someone using a .22 isn't a good shot because they can't handle recoil. I replied saying regardless of the recoil i would take a .22 because of its other positive aspects.
Edit: sorry for not replying more directly (not being sarcastic, i can see the misunderstanding)
-
Jesus christ. Do you read?
We are talking about it penetrating a skull. Something I've done quite a bit with a .22. Not any human skulls but it is the same dynamic. I know for a fact that animals slightly smaller than a human, with equally thin skulls, can stop a .22 bullet with their skull if hit at the right angle at close range.
At medium range the bullet is still "effective" meaning it hasn't dropped to subsonic speeds and lost its accuracy. Yes I know the range of a .22, considering I've been shooting my henry lever action .22 since I got it at the age of 8. A nice gun, all wood and metal so it has enough weight to keep it accurate. It won't bounce in your hand, and I've killed enough animals with it to know what it can do. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would never rely on it for something charging me. Hitting the head would be impossible and torso shots with a .22 won't do much more than slow an angry raccoon. I'd hate to see how little it affects a zombie.
So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me :).
If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
I'm not saying I would survive, but the zombie simply has to bite you for it not to matter.
Have you ever shot a running target?
Can you..... not read or something?
.22 != a heavy rifle
.50 == Heavy rifle
So you proved yourself wrong, congratulations.
Also, usually zombies entail shamblers, but if were going 28 days later esque, id rather have a close range weapon such as a 12 gauge then a .50 calibre if they can close their distance that quickly.
So either way a .50 cal is still not a good weapon to keep around in either case if your smart about your ammo consumption.
Uh, you said .22's are good for people because people aren't used to the recoil of a heavy rifle.
If they are that bad of a shot they couldn't hit me.
Please please please please please keep up with the convo.
Also, a .50 caliber is not a heavy rifle, it is a pistol as I explicitly stated. Please learn to read.
-
The only sensible cure for zombies is fire, and lots of it!
Well done, now you've burned down your safehouse. Remind me not to bunk up with the pyromaniac in an outbreak.
-
Jesus christ. Do you read?
We are talking about it penetrating a skull. Something I've done quite a bit with a .22. Not any human skulls but it is the same dynamic. I know for a fact that animals slightly smaller than a human, with equally thin skulls, can stop a .22 bullet with their skull if hit at the right angle at close range.
At medium range the bullet is still "effective" meaning it hasn't dropped to subsonic speeds and lost its accuracy. Yes I know the range of a .22, considering I've been shooting my henry lever action .22 since I got it at the age of 8. A nice gun, all wood and metal so it has enough weight to keep it accurate. It won't bounce in your hand, and I've killed enough animals with it to know what it can do. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would never rely on it for something charging me. Hitting the head would be impossible and torso shots with a .22 won't do much more than slow an angry raccoon. I'd hate to see how little it affects a zombie.
So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me :).
If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
I'm not saying I would survive, but the zombie simply has to bite you for it not to matter.
Have you ever shot a running target?
Can you..... not read or something?
.22 != a heavy rifle
.50 == Heavy rifle
So you proved yourself wrong, congratulations.
Also, usually zombies entail shamblers, but if were going 28 days later esque, id rather have a close range weapon such as a 12 gauge then a .50 calibre if they can close their distance that quickly.
So either way a .50 cal is still not a good weapon to keep around in either case if your smart about your ammo consumption.
Uh, you said .22's are good for people because people aren't used to the recoil of a heavy rifle.
If they are that bad of a shot they couldn't hit me.
Please please please please please keep up with the convo.
Also, a .50 caliber is not a heavy rifle, it is a pistol as I explicitly stated. Please learn to read.
Would you like to point out where you said pistol? I did a ctrl + f search for "pistol" nothing turned up except your last post. Good job moron. Do you really think you can find a .50 cal pistol sitting around somewhere.
And by the way, specify next time, a .50 AE round is different than a .50 caliber Round in say an m82 Barrett Rifle.
A .22 isn't a heavy rifle. Please stop making yourself look this dumb with guns, I actually think you made up that cute little story about you hunting animals.
Please learn to not be this stupid.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
-
Jesus christ. Do you read?
We are talking about it penetrating a skull. Something I've done quite a bit with a .22. Not any human skulls but it is the same dynamic. I know for a fact that animals slightly smaller than a human, with equally thin skulls, can stop a .22 bullet with their skull if hit at the right angle at close range.
At medium range the bullet is still "effective" meaning it hasn't dropped to subsonic speeds and lost its accuracy. Yes I know the range of a .22, considering I've been shooting my henry lever action .22 since I got it at the age of 8. A nice gun, all wood and metal so it has enough weight to keep it accurate. It won't bounce in your hand, and I've killed enough animals with it to know what it can do. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would never rely on it for something charging me. Hitting the head would be impossible and torso shots with a .22 won't do much more than slow an angry raccoon. I'd hate to see how little it affects a zombie.
So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me :).
If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
I'm not saying I would survive, but the zombie simply has to bite you for it not to matter.
Have you ever shot a running target?
Can you..... not read or something?
.22 != a heavy rifle
.50 == Heavy rifle
So you proved yourself wrong, congratulations.
Also, usually zombies entail shamblers, but if were going 28 days later esque, id rather have a close range weapon such as a 12 gauge then a .50 calibre if they can close their distance that quickly.
So either way a .50 cal is still not a good weapon to keep around in either case if your smart about your ammo consumption.
Uh, you said .22's are good for people because people aren't used to the recoil of a heavy rifle.
If they are that bad of a shot they couldn't hit me.
Please please please please please keep up with the convo.
Also, a .50 caliber is not a heavy rifle, it is a pistol as I explicitly stated. Please learn to read.
Would you like to point out where you said pistol? I did a ctrl + f search for "pistol" nothing turned up except your last post. Good job moron. Do you really think you can find a .50 cal pistol sitting around somewhere.
And by the way, specify next time, a .50 AE round is different than a .50 caliber Round in say an m82 Barrett Rifle.
A .22 isn't a heavy rifle. Please stop making yourself look this dumb with guns, I actually think you made up that cute little story about you hunting animals.
Please learn to not be this stupid.
I've never said a .22 is a heavy rifle. I'm simply saying someone that is too knew to handle a heavy rifle is too new to use ANY FUCKING GUN to hit someone in the head while they are running.
Now please stop embarrassing yourself.
And I'm sorry that you are one of the people that actually believe the myth about .22 exploding inside people's heads. Any pistol round going directly through a brain will kill someone. While a .22 will occasionally not penetrate the second side of the skull it still is not much more effective than larger rounds at killing.
Your dream that a .22 is an effective combat weapon is bullshit. Not a single combat division in the world will use .22's. And if you want to bring the massad that are rumored to use .22 caliber pistols for assassinations, then I'd like to point out the Israeli armed forces use the .50 calliber D eagle in combat.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistol. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifle. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistol. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifle. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot.
Don't forget the .50 beowulf.
I agree at close range a .22 lr would penetrate the skull. It's just that it will not kill a zombie any better than other rounds.
Using a .22 lr to kill zombies would be like using birdshot in a shotgun to protect your home.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistolI never said it was a rifle, you assumed and did so incorrectly.. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifleOf course I do, but both of them have the same caliber meaning again, your assumptions were wrong.. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot. Oh yes I would. Life is not like the video games. When someone is close to you a rifle works just as well as a pistol. Smaller rifles and pistols are only more effective at maneuvering, not at hitting close targets.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistol. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifle. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot.
Don't forget the .50 beowulf.
I agree at close range a .22 lr would penetrate the skull. It's just that it will not kill a zombie any better than other rounds.
Using a .22 lr to kill zombies would be like using birdshot in a shotgun to protect your home.
Yeah like i said, if i was locking down a house for a last stand, I'd pull out at least a 12 gauge. I'd love to have a nice barrett post on the roof of a house just picking off some bastards :D. This is more for, get in the store. Take what we need get out kind of weapon. .22 LR is the lightest gun i've ever had. 12 gauge not as light or easily carriable. I plan for the hardest and scariest part of a zombie invasion, scavenging and patrolling, not locking down a position and holding it, thats the easy part :P
and Raist, I am allowed my assumption unless told so otherwise. Why would I carry around a .50 cal pistol? Do you have any idea how annoying those are to shoot with 1 hand? Nevermind how unnecessarily large they are with usually a short clip size. I'd much rather a USP .45 ACP.
Although a M1911 .45 would be nice too :).
.50 AE: (AE, 12.7×33mm)
.50 Cal: (12.7x99mm NATO)
Big difference. Be more precise next time you talk like you know something.
a .50 cal going into an m82 would never fit into a Desert Eagle .50 AE.
At least not from the sizes I've seen .50 Cal bullets 0.o. Unless the DE barrel is abnormally large, which also seems kinda dumb to carry around..
Do you know what close is? Close is 10-15 feet. I'd like to see you maneuver a rifle at that range not expecting something to attack you.
Thats what pistols and SMG's are made for, CQC. Rifles are meant for Mid- Long range Combat.
Shooting in real life isn't like shooting stationary targets, or animals running from you.
-
I doubt you know what battling against hordes of the undead is really like either, so you can't really call him on his ignorance in that field. Pistols are most commonly used for ease of concealment, and SMGs are only useful in CQC because of the rate of fire. If you're a good shot and the barrel isn't too long to fit in the room you'd probably be better with a rifle, particularly given that you worship the film-style "You gotta shoot 'em in the head" zombies, so having an SMG that'll tear the torso apart with the rate of fire rather than putting the emphasis on aiming, and end up leaving 25% of a zombie that's still 100% capable of infecting you.
Also, Maadi-Griffin 0.50 BMG handgun. It exists.
-
I doubt you know what battling against hordes of the undead is really like either, so you can't really call him on his ignorance in that field. Pistols are most commonly used for ease of concealment, and SMGs are only useful in CQC because of the rate of fire. If you're a good shot and the barrel isn't too long to fit in the room you'd probably be better with a rifle, particularly given that you worship the film-style "You gotta shoot 'em in the head" zombies, so having an SMG that'll tear the torso apart with the rate of fire rather than putting the emphasis on aiming, and end up leaving 25% of a zombie that's still 100% capable of infecting you.
Also, Maadi-Griffin 0.50 BMG handgun. It exists.
Well yeah I was only saying that because in every post it sounds like hes going to have the time to shoulder the rifle, take aim, and fire at their head with 1 shot.
Pistols are used in combat because of easy concealment, but in a situation like that, the lightweight, decent clip size, and good stopping power of a good pistol are all good additions to carry around.
I disagree I believe the SMG is also good in CQC because of the short barrel. Kind of like how M16's are rarely used for inner city fighting in comparison to the m4 Carbine (shorter barrel length if i recall).
and like i said, I'm not gonna be shooting any of these things unless they're pretty damn close, otherwise I'm wasting ammo that I might need later on.
Also could you get me a picture of the Maadi-Griffin? I couldn't find a reliable picture that i could confirm it was a pistol and not some rifle / revolver. I can only imagine how unnecessarily large a .50 cal BMG pistol would be lol.
-
(http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/weapons_fireams/pistol50bmgmaadigriffin467ace.jpg)
-
(http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/weapons_fireams/pistol50bmgmaadigriffin467ace.jpg)
haha I like the huge barrel on it, I can only imagine it has huge recoil is, because the gun is actually pretty small
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistol. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifle. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot.
Don't forget the .50 beowulf.
I agree at close range a .22 lr would penetrate the skull. It's just that it will not kill a zombie any better than other rounds.
Using a .22 lr to kill zombies would be like using birdshot in a shotgun to protect your home.
Yeah like i said, if i was locking down a house for a last stand, I'd pull out at least a 12 gauge. I'd love to have a nice barrett post on the roof of a house just picking off some bastards :D. This is more for, get in the store. Take what we need get out kind of weapon. .22 LR is the lightest gun i've ever had. 12 gauge not as light or easily carriable. I plan for the hardest and scariest part of a zombie invasion, scavenging and patrolling, not locking down a position and holding it, thats the easy part :P
and Raist, I am allowed my assumption unless told so otherwise. Why would I carry around a .50 cal pistol? Do you have any idea how annoying those are to shoot with 1 hand? Nevermind how unnecessarily large they are with usually a short clip size. I'd much rather a USP .45 ACP.
Although a M1911 .45 would be nice too :).
.50 AE: (AE, 12.7×33mm)
.50 Cal: (12.7x99mm NATO)
Big difference. Be more precise next time you talk like you know something.
a .50 cal going into an m82 would never fit into a Desert Eagle .50 AE.
At least not from the sizes I've seen .50 Cal bullets 0.o. Unless the DE barrel is abnormally large, which also seems kinda dumb to carry around..
Do you know what close is? Close is 10-15 feet. I'd like to see you maneuver a rifle at that range not expecting something to attack you.
Thats what pistols and SMG's are made for, CQC. Rifles are meant for Mid- Long range Combat.
Shooting in real life isn't like shooting stationary targets, or animals running from you.
sigh, i'd take you more seriously if you didn't copy paste the size of the bullets and did it from the top of your head.
and I said both bullets have the same caliber, not the same length, shape, load size, etc. Do you know what caliber means?
And as I said, shooting a target at 10-15 feet with a rifle is no harder than doing it with a pistol. The side to side motion is limited in charge to the point of being nonexistent.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
I don't believe .22lr would be a poor round for zombies, from a power standpoint. It is powerful enough to pierce a coyote skull (the closest comparison I have) out to 50yds. So that would be acceptable, IMO. The power of the .22lr is all too often ignored. However, the reliability of a rimfire round certainly leaves something to be desired. I wouldn't want a failure to ignite (FTI) when a zombie is charging me.
As far as the .50bmg, I have little experience so I can't comment. However, I doubt a zombie would be moving after being hit with that many foot lbs.
Well yeah I was only saying that because in every post it sounds like hes going to have the time to shoulder the rifle, take aim, and fire at their head with 1 shot.
Pistols are used in combat because of easy concealment, but in a situation like that, the lightweight, decent clip size, and good stopping power of a good pistol are all good additions to carry around.
I disagree I believe the SMG is also good in CQC because of the short barrel. Kind of like how M16's are rarely used for inner city fighting in comparison to the m4 Carbine (shorter barrel length if i recall).
and like i said, I'm not gonna be shooting any of these things unless they're pretty damn close, otherwise I'm wasting ammo that I might need later on.
Why the fuck would you let one get that close? My first reaction to zombies would be to post up in my house (overlooking our valley). I'd try picking them off at ~400yds, if head shots are a must ~200yds. The reason rifles are used is that they are easier to shoot precisely. The shoulder stock and longer sight radius(distance between front and rear sight). Really aid in practical accuracy. Pistols lack both of these characteristics making them significantly harder to shoot practically. SMG's have a stock however they are meant for close use, they are generally disadvantageous(for more reasons than I feel like explaining) therefore they've been fazed out in most militaries and replaced by 5.56x45mm/5.45x39.5mm carbines.
A pistol is a back up weapon, period. A rifle is generally better in every way, excluding size and weight. They're even faster (and more natural) to bring on target. I could explain why, but my discussion of natural point of aim would probably go way over most here's heads.
Also with minimal training an average person could probably hit a zombie head at 50yds most of the time, in a supported position. No need to let them get that close
(http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ClipMagazineLesson.jpg)
Also, please don't mix the terms up, they're far from interchangeable.
Also yes several .50bmg handguns exist. None are practical for anything.Also as far is impracticality large pistols, a .600 nitro magnum revolver would be my choice.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Fuqbrr00hGW1FM:http://forums.corral.net/photopost/data/500/600_Nitro_Express_Magnum.jpg&t=1)
My current zombie strategy is arm as many people as possible (even with imperfect weapons), ten people with Mosins are far more formidable then one dude with an AR.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
I don't believe .22lr would be a poor round for zombies, from a power standpoint. It is powerful enough to pierce a coyote skull (the closest comparison I have) out to 50yds. So that would be acceptable, IMO. The power of the .22lr is all too often ignored. However, the reliability of a rimfire round certainly leaves something to be desired. I wouldn't want a failure to ignite (FTI) when a zombie is charging me.
As far as the .50bmg, I have little experience so I can't comment. However, I doubt a zombie would be moving after being hit with that many foot lbs.
Well yeah I was only saying that because in every post it sounds like hes going to have the time to shoulder the rifle, take aim, and fire at their head with 1 shot.
Pistols are used in combat because of easy concealment, but in a situation like that, the lightweight, decent clip size, and good stopping power of a good pistol are all good additions to carry around.
I disagree I believe the SMG is also good in CQC because of the short barrel. Kind of like how M16's are rarely used for inner city fighting in comparison to the m4 Carbine (shorter barrel length if i recall).
and like i said, I'm not gonna be shooting any of these things unless they're pretty damn close, otherwise I'm wasting ammo that I might need later on.
Why the fuck would you let one get that close? My first reaction to zombies would be to post up in my house (overlooking our valley). I'd try picking them off at ~400yds, if head shots are a must ~200yds. The reason rifles are used is that they are easier to shoot precisely. The shoulder stock and longer sight radius(distance between front and rear sight). Really aid in practical accuracy. Pistols lack both of these characteristics making them significantly harder to shoot practically. SMG's have a stock however they are meant for close use, they are generally disadvantageous(for more reasons than I feel like explaining) therefore they've been fazed out in most militaries and replaced by 5.56x45mm/5.45x39.5mm carbines.
A pistol is a back up weapon, period. A rifle is generally better in every way, excluding size and weight. They're even faster (and more natural) to bring on target. I could explain why, but my discussion of natural point of aim would probably go way over most here's heads.
Also with minimal training an average person could probably hit a zombie head at 50yds most of the time, in a supported position. No need to let them get that close
Also, please don't mix the terms up, they're far from interchangeable.
Also yes several .50bmg handguns exist. None are practical for anything.Also as far is impracticality large pistols, a .600 nitro magnum revolver would be my choice.
My current zombie strategy is arm as many people as possible (even with imperfect weapons), ten people with Mosins are far more formidable then one dude with an AR.
Eh I wouldn't risk the ammo at that kind of range, I'm gonna be a huge conservative "Till you see the white of their eyes" kind of bullet hog. And like ive stated this is more for on the move shooting, not stationary, holding my house kind of thing, although i do appreciate your input :).
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistol. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifle. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot.
Don't forget the .50 beowulf.
I agree at close range a .22 lr would penetrate the skull. It's just that it will not kill a zombie any better than other rounds.
Using a .22 lr to kill zombies would be like using birdshot in a shotgun to protect your home.
Yeah like i said, if i was locking down a house for a last stand, I'd pull out at least a 12 gauge. I'd love to have a nice barrett post on the roof of a house just picking off some bastards :D. This is more for, get in the store. Take what we need get out kind of weapon. .22 LR is the lightest gun i've ever had. 12 gauge not as light or easily carriable. I plan for the hardest and scariest part of a zombie invasion, scavenging and patrolling, not locking down a position and holding it, thats the easy part :P
and Raist, I am allowed my assumption unless told so otherwise. Why would I carry around a .50 cal pistol? Do you have any idea how annoying those are to shoot with 1 hand? Nevermind how unnecessarily large they are with usually a short clip size. I'd much rather a USP .45 ACP.
Although a M1911 .45 would be nice too :).
.50 AE: (AE, 12.7×33mm)
.50 Cal: (12.7x99mm NATO)
Big difference. Be more precise next time you talk like you know something.
a .50 cal going into an m82 would never fit into a Desert Eagle .50 AE.
At least not from the sizes I've seen .50 Cal bullets 0.o. Unless the DE barrel is abnormally large, which also seems kinda dumb to carry around..
Do you know what close is? Close is 10-15 feet. I'd like to see you maneuver a rifle at that range not expecting something to attack you.
Thats what pistols and SMG's are made for, CQC. Rifles are meant for Mid- Long range Combat.
Shooting in real life isn't like shooting stationary targets, or animals running from you.
sigh, i'd take you more seriously if you didn't copy paste the size of the bullets and did it from the top of your head.
and I said both bullets have the same caliber, not the same length, shape, load size, etc. Do you know what caliber means?
And as I said, shooting a target at 10-15 feet with a rifle is no harder than doing it with a pistol. The side to side motion is limited in charge to the point of being nonexistent.
And if I did that you would have called me wrong and to cite my source or whatever, so i prefer copypasta. And wow you should go out and shoot some time if you really think that 0.o. Multiple targets at 10 feet and your trying to shoulder a rifle to get perfect headshots on each of them...? Good luck mate =/.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
I don't believe .22lr would be a poor round for zombies, from a power standpoint. It is powerful enough to pierce a coyote skull (the closest comparison I have) out to 50yds. So that would be acceptable, IMO. The power of the .22lr is all too often ignored. However, the reliability of a rimfire round certainly leaves something to be desired. I wouldn't want a failure to ignite (FTI) when a zombie is charging me.
As far as the .50bmg, I have little experience so I can't comment. However, I doubt a zombie would be moving after being hit with that many foot lbs.
Well yeah I was only saying that because in every post it sounds like hes going to have the time to shoulder the rifle, take aim, and fire at their head with 1 shot.
Pistols are used in combat because of easy concealment, but in a situation like that, the lightweight, decent clip size, and good stopping power of a good pistol are all good additions to carry around.
I disagree I believe the SMG is also good in CQC because of the short barrel. Kind of like how M16's are rarely used for inner city fighting in comparison to the m4 Carbine (shorter barrel length if i recall).
and like i said, I'm not gonna be shooting any of these things unless they're pretty damn close, otherwise I'm wasting ammo that I might need later on.
Why the fuck would you let one get that close? My first reaction to zombies would be to post up in my house (overlooking our valley). I'd try picking them off at ~400yds, if head shots are a must ~200yds. The reason rifles are used is that they are easier to shoot precisely. The shoulder stock and longer sight radius(distance between front and rear sight). Really aid in practical accuracy. Pistols lack both of these characteristics making them significantly harder to shoot practically. SMG's have a stock however they are meant for close use, they are generally disadvantageous(for more reasons than I feel like explaining) therefore they've been fazed out in most militaries and replaced by 5.56x45mm/5.45x39.5mm carbines.
A pistol is a back up weapon, period. A rifle is generally better in every way, excluding size and weight. They're even faster (and more natural) to bring on target. I could explain why, but my discussion of natural point of aim would probably go way over most here's heads.
Also with minimal training an average person could probably hit a zombie head at 50yds most of the time, in a supported position. No need to let them get that close
Also, please don't mix the terms up, they're far from interchangeable.
Also yes several .50bmg handguns exist. None are practical for anything.Also as far is impracticality large pistols, a .600 nitro magnum revolver would be my choice.
My current zombie strategy is arm as many people as possible (even with imperfect weapons), ten people with Mosins are far more formidable then one dude with an AR.
Eh I wouldn't risk the ammo at that kind of range, I'm gonna be a huge conservative "Till you see the white of their eyes" kind of bullet hog. And like ive stated this is more for on the move shooting, not stationary, holding my house kind of thing, although i do appreciate your input :).
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistol. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifle. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot.
Don't forget the .50 beowulf.
I agree at close range a .22 lr would penetrate the skull. It's just that it will not kill a zombie any better than other rounds.
Using a .22 lr to kill zombies would be like using birdshot in a shotgun to protect your home.
Yeah like i said, if i was locking down a house for a last stand, I'd pull out at least a 12 gauge. I'd love to have a nice barrett post on the roof of a house just picking off some bastards :D. This is more for, get in the store. Take what we need get out kind of weapon. .22 LR is the lightest gun i've ever had. 12 gauge not as light or easily carriable. I plan for the hardest and scariest part of a zombie invasion, scavenging and patrolling, not locking down a position and holding it, thats the easy part :P
and Raist, I am allowed my assumption unless told so otherwise. Why would I carry around a .50 cal pistol? Do you have any idea how annoying those are to shoot with 1 hand? Nevermind how unnecessarily large they are with usually a short clip size. I'd much rather a USP .45 ACP.
Although a M1911 .45 would be nice too :).
.50 AE: (AE, 12.7×33mm)
.50 Cal: (12.7x99mm NATO)
Big difference. Be more precise next time you talk like you know something.
a .50 cal going into an m82 would never fit into a Desert Eagle .50 AE.
At least not from the sizes I've seen .50 Cal bullets 0.o. Unless the DE barrel is abnormally large, which also seems kinda dumb to carry around..
Do you know what close is? Close is 10-15 feet. I'd like to see you maneuver a rifle at that range not expecting something to attack you.
Thats what pistols and SMG's are made for, CQC. Rifles are meant for Mid- Long range Combat.
Shooting in real life isn't like shooting stationary targets, or animals running from you.
sigh, i'd take you more seriously if you didn't copy paste the size of the bullets and did it from the top of your head.
and I said both bullets have the same caliber, not the same length, shape, load size, etc. Do you know what caliber means?
And as I said, shooting a target at 10-15 feet with a rifle is no harder than doing it with a pistol. The side to side motion is limited in charge to the point of being nonexistent.
And if I did that you would have called me wrong and to cite my source or whatever, so i prefer copypasta. And wow you should go out and shoot some time if you really think that 0.o. Multiple targets at 10 feet and your trying to shoulder a rifle to get perfect headshots on each of them...? Good luck mate =/.
Lol. That's a fire rate problem. The reason they make semi auto carbines mister bullet hog. Good luck blowing all of your ammo in pistol rounds.
Also, if there are multiple zombies within 10 feet of you then you've already let them get too close. Maybe you should have shot at 200 yards.
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
I don't believe .22lr would be a poor round for zombies, from a power standpoint. It is powerful enough to pierce a coyote skull (the closest comparison I have) out to 50yds. So that would be acceptable, IMO. The power of the .22lr is all too often ignored. However, the reliability of a rimfire round certainly leaves something to be desired. I wouldn't want a failure to ignite (FTI) when a zombie is charging me.
As far as the .50bmg, I have little experience so I can't comment. However, I doubt a zombie would be moving after being hit with that many foot lbs.
Well yeah I was only saying that because in every post it sounds like hes going to have the time to shoulder the rifle, take aim, and fire at their head with 1 shot.
Pistols are used in combat because of easy concealment, but in a situation like that, the lightweight, decent clip size, and good stopping power of a good pistol are all good additions to carry around.
I disagree I believe the SMG is also good in CQC because of the short barrel. Kind of like how M16's are rarely used for inner city fighting in comparison to the m4 Carbine (shorter barrel length if i recall).
and like i said, I'm not gonna be shooting any of these things unless they're pretty damn close, otherwise I'm wasting ammo that I might need later on.
Why the fuck would you let one get that close? My first reaction to zombies would be to post up in my house (overlooking our valley). I'd try picking them off at ~400yds, if head shots are a must ~200yds. The reason rifles are used is that they are easier to shoot precisely. The shoulder stock and longer sight radius(distance between front and rear sight). Really aid in practical accuracy. Pistols lack both of these characteristics making them significantly harder to shoot practically. SMG's have a stock however they are meant for close use, they are generally disadvantageous(for more reasons than I feel like explaining) therefore they've been fazed out in most militaries and replaced by 5.56x45mm/5.45x39.5mm carbines.
A pistol is a back up weapon, period. A rifle is generally better in every way, excluding size and weight. They're even faster (and more natural) to bring on target. I could explain why, but my discussion of natural point of aim would probably go way over most here's heads.
Also with minimal training an average person could probably hit a zombie head at 50yds most of the time, in a supported position. No need to let them get that close
Also, please don't mix the terms up, they're far from interchangeable.
Also yes several .50bmg handguns exist. None are practical for anything.Also as far is impracticality large pistols, a .600 nitro magnum revolver would be my choice.
My current zombie strategy is arm as many people as possible (even with imperfect weapons), ten people with Mosins are far more formidable then one dude with an AR.
Eh I wouldn't risk the ammo at that kind of range, I'm gonna be a huge conservative "Till you see the white of their eyes" kind of bullet hog. And like ive stated this is more for on the move shooting, not stationary, holding my house kind of thing, although i do appreciate your input :).
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistol. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifle. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot.
Don't forget the .50 beowulf.
I agree at close range a .22 lr would penetrate the skull. It's just that it will not kill a zombie any better than other rounds.
Using a .22 lr to kill zombies would be like using birdshot in a shotgun to protect your home.
Yeah like i said, if i was locking down a house for a last stand, I'd pull out at least a 12 gauge. I'd love to have a nice barrett post on the roof of a house just picking off some bastards :D. This is more for, get in the store. Take what we need get out kind of weapon. .22 LR is the lightest gun i've ever had. 12 gauge not as light or easily carriable. I plan for the hardest and scariest part of a zombie invasion, scavenging and patrolling, not locking down a position and holding it, thats the easy part :P
and Raist, I am allowed my assumption unless told so otherwise. Why would I carry around a .50 cal pistol? Do you have any idea how annoying those are to shoot with 1 hand? Nevermind how unnecessarily large they are with usually a short clip size. I'd much rather a USP .45 ACP.
Although a M1911 .45 would be nice too :).
.50 AE: (AE, 12.7×33mm)
.50 Cal: (12.7x99mm NATO)
Big difference. Be more precise next time you talk like you know something.
a .50 cal going into an m82 would never fit into a Desert Eagle .50 AE.
At least not from the sizes I've seen .50 Cal bullets 0.o. Unless the DE barrel is abnormally large, which also seems kinda dumb to carry around..
Do you know what close is? Close is 10-15 feet. I'd like to see you maneuver a rifle at that range not expecting something to attack you.
Thats what pistols and SMG's are made for, CQC. Rifles are meant for Mid- Long range Combat.
Shooting in real life isn't like shooting stationary targets, or animals running from you.
sigh, i'd take you more seriously if you didn't copy paste the size of the bullets and did it from the top of your head.
and I said both bullets have the same caliber, not the same length, shape, load size, etc. Do you know what caliber means?
And as I said, shooting a target at 10-15 feet with a rifle is no harder than doing it with a pistol. The side to side motion is limited in charge to the point of being nonexistent.
And if I did that you would have called me wrong and to cite my source or whatever, so i prefer copypasta. And wow you should go out and shoot some time if you really think that 0.o. Multiple targets at 10 feet and your trying to shoulder a rifle to get perfect headshots on each of them...? Good luck mate =/.
Lol. That's a fire rate problem. The reason they make semi auto carbines mister bullet hog. Good luck blowing all of your ammo in pistol rounds.
Huh? I thought we were on .50 Cal and .22lr, now your bringing in carbines? How about you stay on topic.
Also, if there are multiple zombies within 10 feet of you then you've already let them get too close. Maybe you should have shot at 200 yards.
Good luck wasting all of your ammo, and when they finally do get close your spent on ammunition and you can't get back to your stronghold to get more, Guess I know whos gonna be dieing first if this shit goes down :)
-
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
I don't believe .22lr would be a poor round for zombies, from a power standpoint. It is powerful enough to pierce a coyote skull (the closest comparison I have) out to 50yds. So that would be acceptable, IMO. The power of the .22lr is all too often ignored. However, the reliability of a rimfire round certainly leaves something to be desired. I wouldn't want a failure to ignite (FTI) when a zombie is charging me.
As far as the .50bmg, I have little experience so I can't comment. However, I doubt a zombie would be moving after being hit with that many foot lbs.
Well yeah I was only saying that because in every post it sounds like hes going to have the time to shoulder the rifle, take aim, and fire at their head with 1 shot.
Pistols are used in combat because of easy concealment, but in a situation like that, the lightweight, decent clip size, and good stopping power of a good pistol are all good additions to carry around.
I disagree I believe the SMG is also good in CQC because of the short barrel. Kind of like how M16's are rarely used for inner city fighting in comparison to the m4 Carbine (shorter barrel length if i recall).
and like i said, I'm not gonna be shooting any of these things unless they're pretty damn close, otherwise I'm wasting ammo that I might need later on.
Why the fuck would you let one get that close? My first reaction to zombies would be to post up in my house (overlooking our valley). I'd try picking them off at ~400yds, if head shots are a must ~200yds. The reason rifles are used is that they are easier to shoot precisely. The shoulder stock and longer sight radius(distance between front and rear sight). Really aid in practical accuracy. Pistols lack both of these characteristics making them significantly harder to shoot practically. SMG's have a stock however they are meant for close use, they are generally disadvantageous(for more reasons than I feel like explaining) therefore they've been fazed out in most militaries and replaced by 5.56x45mm/5.45x39.5mm carbines.
A pistol is a back up weapon, period. A rifle is generally better in every way, excluding size and weight. They're even faster (and more natural) to bring on target. I could explain why, but my discussion of natural point of aim would probably go way over most here's heads.
Also with minimal training an average person could probably hit a zombie head at 50yds most of the time, in a supported position. No need to let them get that close
Also, please don't mix the terms up, they're far from interchangeable.
Also yes several .50bmg handguns exist. None are practical for anything.Also as far is impracticality large pistols, a .600 nitro magnum revolver would be my choice.
My current zombie strategy is arm as many people as possible (even with imperfect weapons), ten people with Mosins are far more formidable then one dude with an AR.
Eh I wouldn't risk the ammo at that kind of range, I'm gonna be a huge conservative "Till you see the white of their eyes" kind of bullet hog. And like ive stated this is more for on the move shooting, not stationary, holding my house kind of thing, although i do appreciate your input :).
I'm surprised Sokarul hasn't said anything, he's actually a gun expert.
To get one thing straight. One of the biggest gun myths ever is that a .22 lr will bounce around in a skull. This is simply not true. The .22 lr round does not penetrate much. It's range is also terrible.
Most .50 cal rifles are super heavy. I shot a Barret. You aren't going to be using it like you can in MW.
Personally I believe the .50 and the .22lr rounds would be poor rounds to fight zombies. (if that is even what you guys are talking about.)
That's what I was saying.
I made a joke about it'd be better to kill them than shoot them and he went off on his ".22lr is the greatest combat round on earth splurge"
I just wanted to see how much he'd rage :). Also he proved himself to be pretty dumb, he tripped on his own words, failed to ever say the word pistol. Doesn't realize theres a difference between a .50 AE pistol round and a .50 Caliber round for a rifle. And Im pretty sure at close range a .22 would have no problem penetrating a skull. Especially if its all rotty and decaying like the movies portray them to be. If not. A point blank shot should beable to kill :).
Raist is just a noob with guns and the english language.
"
Me: So you'd have no problem someone shooting at you in the forehead with a .22 long rifle say... 10-15 meters away? Not scared at all? Put that to the test for me Smiley.
Him: If I was running full sprint at them, and they were too new to be used to the recoil of a heavy rifle, then i'd bet you 20 bucks I could tackle them.
"
You wouldn't be shooting at someone that close with a heavy rifle anyway <.<. so it doesn't mean they can't shoot.
Don't forget the .50 beowulf.
I agree at close range a .22 lr would penetrate the skull. It's just that it will not kill a zombie any better than other rounds.
Using a .22 lr to kill zombies would be like using birdshot in a shotgun to protect your home.
Yeah like i said, if i was locking down a house for a last stand, I'd pull out at least a 12 gauge. I'd love to have a nice barrett post on the roof of a house just picking off some bastards :D. This is more for, get in the store. Take what we need get out kind of weapon. .22 LR is the lightest gun i've ever had. 12 gauge not as light or easily carriable. I plan for the hardest and scariest part of a zombie invasion, scavenging and patrolling, not locking down a position and holding it, thats the easy part :P
and Raist, I am allowed my assumption unless told so otherwise. Why would I carry around a .50 cal pistol? Do you have any idea how annoying those are to shoot with 1 hand? Nevermind how unnecessarily large they are with usually a short clip size. I'd much rather a USP .45 ACP.
Although a M1911 .45 would be nice too :).
.50 AE: (AE, 12.7×33mm)
.50 Cal: (12.7x99mm NATO)
Big difference. Be more precise next time you talk like you know something.
a .50 cal going into an m82 would never fit into a Desert Eagle .50 AE.
At least not from the sizes I've seen .50 Cal bullets 0.o. Unless the DE barrel is abnormally large, which also seems kinda dumb to carry around..
Do you know what close is? Close is 10-15 feet. I'd like to see you maneuver a rifle at that range not expecting something to attack you.
Thats what pistols and SMG's are made for, CQC. Rifles are meant for Mid- Long range Combat.
Shooting in real life isn't like shooting stationary targets, or animals running from you.
sigh, i'd take you more seriously if you didn't copy paste the size of the bullets and did it from the top of your head.
and I said both bullets have the same caliber, not the same length, shape, load size, etc. Do you know what caliber means?
And as I said, shooting a target at 10-15 feet with a rifle is no harder than doing it with a pistol. The side to side motion is limited in charge to the point of being nonexistent.
And if I did that you would have called me wrong and to cite my source or whatever, so i prefer copypasta. And wow you should go out and shoot some time if you really think that 0.o. Multiple targets at 10 feet and your trying to shoulder a rifle to get perfect headshots on each of them...? Good luck mate =/.
Lol. That's a fire rate problem. The reason they make semi auto carbines mister bullet hog. Good luck blowing all of your ammo in pistol rounds.
Huh? I thought we were on .50 Cal and .22lr, now your bringing in carbines? How about you stay on topic.
Also, if there are multiple zombies within 10 feet of you then you've already let them get too close. Maybe you should have shot at 200 yards.
Good luck wasting all of your ammo, and when they finally do get close your spent on ammunition and you can't get back to your stronghold to get more, Guess I know whos gonna be dieing first if this shit goes down :)
200 yards shot is not that tough.
-
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
-
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
Those two could be easily prevented. Also 200yds isn't that tough.
-
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
Those two could be easily prevented. Also 200yds isn't that tough.
Agreed, 183 meters isn't a very hard. Different points here, though.
1. You aren't shooting if it isn't aware of presence.
2. If there are hundreds around you, you're doing something wrong.
3. If there are hundreds around you, you better not expect to start shooting and live.
-
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
If you're surrounded by hundreds of zombies I don't care what gun you have, you're dead. That pistol with 12 rounds tops (on a .22 much lower) won't save you when they hear the gunshots.
You could go with subsonics, but assuming skull penetration is essential you'd have to have a much heavier round to penetrate their skull. Oh wow, .22 fails again.
-
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
If you're surrounded by hundreds of zombies I don't care what gun you have, you're dead. That pistol with 12 rounds tops (on a .22 much lower) won't save you when they hear the gunshots.
You could go with subsonics, but assuming skull penetration is essential you'd have to have a much heavier round to penetrate their skull. Oh wow, .22 fails again.
A subsonic .38spcl may be the ticket! Loaded in a .357 magnum lever-action carbine you'd have a formidable package. .38 for being stealthy, and hot .357 loads for when they know you're there. It holds ten rounds, and can be reloaded without having to remove any magazine. All in one extremely light compact and reliable package!
(http://www.marlinfirearms.com/images/1894/zoom_1894C.jpg)
-
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
If you're surrounded by hundreds of zombies I don't care what gun you have, you're dead. That pistol with 12 rounds tops (on a .22 much lower) won't save you when they hear the gunshots.
You could go with subsonics, but assuming skull penetration is essential you'd have to have a much heavier round to penetrate their skull. Oh wow, .22 fails again.
A subsonic .38spcl may be the ticket! Loaded in a .357 magnum lever-action carbine you'd have a formidable package. .38 for being stealthy, and hot .357 loads for when they know you're there. It holds ten rounds, and can be reloaded without having to remove any magazine. All in one extremely light compact and reliable package!
(http://www.marlinfirearms.com/images/1894/zoom_1894C.jpg)
The henry. My personal fave.
I have one of those chambered in .22, unfortunately it is the sort where a rod must be removed to load the gun with more rounds. I have had that gun since the age of 8 or so, and I have to say it is the best weighted .22 I have ever shot. Is it just me or are too many low caliber guns way too light?
-
It's actually not a Henry, but a Marlin 1894c. This model does not have a rod that needs removal (thank god too, those style magazines suck).
Weight is a trade off in firearms. Weight aids in practical precision and reduces felt recoil, but it's a bitch to carry about. Most military weapons strive to be light for a reason.
As far is heavy weight rimfires look into "Varmint" or "Target" models.
-
It's actually not a Henry, but a Marlin 1894c. This model does not have a rod that needs removal (thank god too, those style magazines suck).
Weight is a trade off in firearms. Weight aids in practical precision and reduces felt recoil, but it's a bitch to carry about. Most military weapons strive to be light for a reason.
As far is heavy weight rimfires look into "Varmint" or "Target" models.
Sigh, I know it isn't an actual henry, it is based off of the henry style. The henrys chambered .45's if I remember correctly. I also figured that model didn't require a rod being removed as it has the little flap for reloading and not a little cap at the end of the tube.
As for weight, there is no reason a .22 should ever have to cut weight with a fiberglass stock. They don't weight enough to burden you in the first place, and I can barely keep a gun that light steady enough to take a shot. My little cousin bought a very old marlin semi auto with an octagonal barrel. He had it shipped from South Carolina after we saw it in a shop while on vacation. Unfortunately it is a tube fed gun, but that is still better than a clip as far as reload time goes.
-
It's actually not a Henry, but a Marlin 1894c. This model does not have a rod that needs removal (thank god too, those style magazines suck).
Weight is a trade off in firearms. Weight aids in practical precision and reduces felt recoil, but it's a bitch to carry about. Most military weapons strive to be light for a reason.
As far is heavy weight rimfires look into "Varmint" or "Target" models.
Sigh, I know it isn't an actual henry, it is based off of the henry style. The henrys chambered .45's if I remember correctly. I also figured that model didn't require a rod being removed as it has the little flap for reloading and not a little cap at the end of the tube.
As for weight, there is no reason a .22 should ever have to cut weight with a fiberglass stock. They don't weight enough to burden you in the first place, and I can barely keep a gun that light steady enough to take a shot. My little cousin bought a very old marlin semi auto with an octagonal barrel. He had it shipped from South Carolina after we saw it in a shop while on vacation. Unfortunately it is a tube fed gun, but that is still better than a clip as far as reload time goes.
Henry's were usually chambered in .44 Henry (a large low powered rimfire round). However modern replicas usually are in .45 long colt. The reason for the switch is because .44 Henry is a week outdated round, that is no longer in production. Henry's reload in a unique fashion. First one compresses the magazine spring. Then one twists open the magazine tube, exposing a loading gate. Then one loads in individual cartridges, then twists back the tube. Lastly the spring is released and one racks the lever in order to chamber a round.
Generally I'd agree with you. However, some ultra light weight .22lr's are cool in there own merit.
-
Subsonic, silenced rounds still make noise, though. IDK how much, I'm not that experienced, but I know it's not just a little "thwip" like in the movies.
-
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
Those two could be easily prevented. Also 200yds isn't that tough.
So your a master of survival and scavenging and can pull food and ammo out of your ass after a few years of surviving?
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
Those two could be easily prevented. Also 200yds isn't that tough.
Agreed, 183 meters isn't a very hard. Different points here, though.
1. You aren't shooting if it isn't aware of presence.
2. If there are hundreds around you, you're doing something wrong.
3. If there are hundreds around you, you better not expect to start shooting and live.
1. My point exactly, so the 200 yard shot is irrelevant
2. Not if your going to where they live in order to get ammo and food
3. I expect to be able to run and if necessary shoot at the same time, good luck doing that accurately with a rifle.
200 yards shot is not that tough.
When your hungry, scared, hopeless, low on ammunition, hundreds of targets around you and shooting at something that isn't even aware of your presence, I believe that's a waste of ammo.
If you're surrounded by hundreds of zombies I don't care what gun you have, you're dead. That pistol with 12 rounds tops (on a .22 much lower) won't save you when they hear the gunshots.
You could go with subsonics, but assuming skull penetration is essential you'd have to have a much heavier round to penetrate their skull. Oh wow, .22 fails again.
thats the whole point of not shooting till they see you moron, which is why I've been talking about close range, inner-building fighting.
Pistols have something nice called a magazine, very handy when you need to reload.
Good luck finding plentiful subsonic rounds 0.o. Subsonic rounds only muffle the sound of the bullet, not the actual metal parts of the gun. So if your shooting anything that is out of range of hearing the slide move and lock or you pumping the gun, your wasting ammunition again.
You get ammo and food in buildings, not big nice fields with random stands sitting around, If your shooting at all, its going to be things almost right in front of you. If your running out into the street shooting things at 200 yards who don't even notice you stealing some food and ammo, Good job you caught all of their attention and now theyre going to be chasing your ass down.
(http://www.grsc.com/images_crs/200_yards.jpg)
Good luck shooting something that far without being in a good position, with iron sights, and relatively calm. And good luck being calm if 100 of these bastards are running at you. And if this is the head-dead zombies (only killed with a headshot) your screwed even worse while chasing you.
-
thats the whole point of not shooting till they see you moron, which is why I've been talking about close range, inner-building fighting.
Pistols have something nice called a magazine, very handy when you need to reload.
Good luck finding plentiful subsonic rounds 0.o. Subsonic rounds only muffle the sound of the bullet, not the actual metal parts of the gun. So if your shooting anything that is out of range of hearing the slide move and lock or you pumping the gun, your wasting ammunition again.
You get ammo and food in buildings, not big nice fields with random stands sitting around, If your shooting at all, its going to be things almost right in front of you. If your running out into the street shooting things at 200 yards who don't even notice you stealing some food and ammo, Good job you caught all of their attention and now theyre going to be chasing your ass down.
(http://www.grsc.com/images_crs/200_yards.jpg)
Good luck shooting something that far without being in a good position, with iron sights, and relatively calm. And good luck being calm if 100 of these bastards are running at you. And if this is the head-dead zombies (only killed with a headshot) your screwed even worse while chasing you.
If you start shooting in general, you're pretty fucked. Also, good luck running and scoring headshots. Remember every shot will more than likely cause more zombies to start moving in your direction.
-
If you start shooting in general, you're pretty fucked. Also, good luck running and scoring headshots. Remember every shot will more than likely cause more zombies to start moving in your direction.
QFT
And for the running thing its more of a plan to shoot em to stop em. Wasting time try to get kills unless its point blank when all i need is ammo and stuff, I waste maybe at most 3 clips. 3 x 12 = 36 shots for maybe a few hundred .45 shots i just found.
Save your ammo for the final hold, not for running around :P.
-
you could start stocking up now, and never have to run around looking for supplies.
-
you could start stocking up now, and never have to run around looking for supplies.
Eh either way your going to have to make trips to stores, cities, etc. Might as well have a plan on how to get in and out quick.
Maps + Truck + Machine gun on the bed + teams with preplanned course + light but effective close range weapons = Get in, Take what you need, get out. :D
-
you could start stocking up now, and never have to run around looking for supplies.
Eh either way your going to have to make trips to stores, cities, etc. Might as well have a plan on how to get in and out quick.
Maps + Truck + Machine gun on the bed + teams with preplanned course + light but effective close range weapons = Get in, Take what you need, get out. :D
Pet zombies. :D You can cut off their hands and rub the zombie juices all over your body so you will smell like zombies. Then they won't chase after you.
-
PET ZOMBIES. You can use them for sex slaves.
-
If you start shooting in general, you're pretty fucked. Also, good luck running and scoring headshots. Remember every shot will more than likely cause more zombies to start moving in your direction.
QFT
And for the running thing its more of a plan to shoot em to stop em. Wasting time try to get kills unless its point blank when all i need is ammo and stuff, I waste maybe at most 3 clips. 3 x 12 = 36 shots for maybe a few hundred .45 shots i just found.
Save your ammo for the final hold, not for running around :P.
Wow, I thought .22's were good, but they lack any real stopping power which is what you're desiring here.
-
If you start shooting in general, you're pretty fucked. Also, good luck running and scoring headshots. Remember every shot will more than likely cause more zombies to start moving in your direction.
QFT
And for the running thing its more of a plan to shoot em to stop em. Wasting time try to get kills unless its point blank when all i need is ammo and stuff, I waste maybe at most 3 clips. 3 x 12 = 36 shots for maybe a few hundred .45 shots i just found.
Save your ammo for the final hold, not for running around :P.
Wow, I thought .22's were good, but they lack any real stopping power which is what you're desiring here.
That was actually a point he brought up earlier, too. They don't have stopping power. Too lazy to look for it, though.
-
So your a master of survival and scavenging and can pull food and ammo out of your ass after a few years of surviving?
Stockpile!
thats the whole point of not shooting till they see you moron, which is why I've been talking about close range, inner-building fighting.
Pistols have something nice called a magazine, very handy when you need to reload.
Good luck finding plentiful subsonic rounds 0.o. Subsonic rounds only muffle the sound of the bullet, not the actual metal parts of the gun. So if your shooting anything that is out of range of hearing the slide move and lock or you pumping the gun, your wasting ammunition again.
You get ammo and food in buildings, not big nice fields with random stands sitting around, If your shooting at all, its going to be things almost right in front of you. If your running out into the street shooting things at 200 yards who don't even notice you stealing some food and ammo, Good job you caught all of their attention and now theyre going to be chasing your ass down.
http://www.grsc.com/images_crs/200_yards.jpg
Good luck shooting something that far without being in a good position, with iron sights, and relatively calm. And good luck being calm if 100 of these bastards are running at you. And if this is the head-dead zombies (only killed with a headshot) your screwed even worse while chasing you.
You are correct in that they muffle only the sound of the bullet. However working a lever action isn't that loud. Also making subsonic ammo isn't hard at all. Especially if you have reloading equipment. Remove bullet, empty powder to desired level, but back bullet. This has been done before historically. Jews in occupied areas surrounding Germany would often need a concealable weapon. Not having a pistol on hand they'd chop down rifles. They'd then fabricate there own reduced loads.
I'm well aware of what 200yds looks like, I'm confident that I could do it with the irons on my Ar, Mosin, SKS, or AK (I practice with 8" steel plates).
A scope would just make it all that much easier. I wouldn't try to run and shoot. My strategy would be shoot prone, then book it. For somone less experienced than I, I'm confident they could do 75yds with little to no training.
-
PET ZOMBIES. You can use them for sex slaves.
You know the entire point of the zombie virus is spread by fluid contact, right? It's plausible, but you'll be going through three condoms at a time if you don't want infected. Better to just get a human slave, because if you're the only one prepared people will be willing to go into slavery for shelter.
-
So your a master of survival and scavenging and can pull food and ammo out of your ass after a few years of surviving?
Stockpile!
thats the whole point of not shooting till they see you moron, which is why I've been talking about close range, inner-building fighting.
Pistols have something nice called a magazine, very handy when you need to reload.
Good luck finding plentiful subsonic rounds 0.o. Subsonic rounds only muffle the sound of the bullet, not the actual metal parts of the gun. So if your shooting anything that is out of range of hearing the slide move and lock or you pumping the gun, your wasting ammunition again.
You get ammo and food in buildings, not big nice fields with random stands sitting around, If your shooting at all, its going to be things almost right in front of you. If your running out into the street shooting things at 200 yards who don't even notice you stealing some food and ammo, Good job you caught all of their attention and now theyre going to be chasing your ass down.
http://www.grsc.com/images_crs/200_yards.jpg
Good luck shooting something that far without being in a good position, with iron sights, and relatively calm. And good luck being calm if 100 of these bastards are running at you. And if this is the head-dead zombies (only killed with a headshot) your screwed even worse while chasing you.
You are correct in that they muffle only the sound of the bullet. However working a lever action isn't that loud. Also making subsonic ammo isn't hard at all. Especially if you have reloading equipment. Remove bullet, empty powder to desired level, but back bullet. This has been done before historically. Jews in occupied areas surrounding Germany would often need a concealable weapon. Not having a pistol on hand they'd chop down rifles. They'd then fabricate there own reduced loads.
I'm well aware of what 200yds looks like, I'm confident that I could do it with the irons on my Ar, Mosin, SKS, or AK (I practice with 8" steel plates).
A scope would just make it all that much easier. I wouldn't try to run and shoot. My strategy would be shoot prone, then book it. For somone less experienced than I, I'm confident they could do 75yds with little to no training.
You can stockpile 10+ years of equipment in one area without ever having to leave 0.o?
"My strategy would be shoot prone"
Wow you people really arn't getting the image lol. You prone in the middle of a street in a city, a zombie comes up behind you, hey guess what, your screwed. Go ahead and try to sprawl up from a prone position and try to outrun a zombie. (Fast or slow).
Think of it like L4D, now imagine you proned to shoot all those buggers coming down an alley way, oh cool you popped off a few headshots, oh wait an entire horde of them just came up behind you and you cant get back up.
All of these shots should be either standing, or MAYBE crouched. If not, then you shouldn't be shooting aforementioned target.
And if you take out the powder your just going to make the bullet so weak your better off saving it for closer range targets anyway.
This isn't a little strip of field that you can lie down and shoot at zombies all day, this is, you surrounded in a city full of them and your trying to get in and out <.<. Which is going to be at least 50% of the time your going to be scavenging, the other 20% barricading, 20% sleeping/eating/etc., 10% actually holding down your AO from swarms attacking you.
-
Think of it like L4D
No. This thinking of it like L4D is the reason you're having this disagreement, and the reason you're on the wrong side. In fact, I suggest the contrary, you stop thinking of anything like L4D forever.
Hell, if they weren't going to bother making it anything approaching realistic they could have at least made it fun, but they didn't and its success baffles me.
-
So your a master of survival and scavenging and can pull food and ammo out of your ass after a few years of surviving?
Stockpile!
thats the whole point of not shooting till they see you moron, which is why I've been talking about close range, inner-building fighting.
Pistols have something nice called a magazine, very handy when you need to reload.
Good luck finding plentiful subsonic rounds 0.o. Subsonic rounds only muffle the sound of the bullet, not the actual metal parts of the gun. So if your shooting anything that is out of range of hearing the slide move and lock or you pumping the gun, your wasting ammunition again.
You get ammo and food in buildings, not big nice fields with random stands sitting around, If your shooting at all, its going to be things almost right in front of you. If your running out into the street shooting things at 200 yards who don't even notice you stealing some food and ammo, Good job you caught all of their attention and now theyre going to be chasing your ass down.
http://www.grsc.com/images_crs/200_yards.jpg
Good luck shooting something that far without being in a good position, with iron sights, and relatively calm. And good luck being calm if 100 of these bastards are running at you. And if this is the head-dead zombies (only killed with a headshot) your screwed even worse while chasing you.
You are correct in that they muffle only the sound of the bullet. However working a lever action isn't that loud. Also making subsonic ammo isn't hard at all. Especially if you have reloading equipment. Remove bullet, empty powder to desired level, but back bullet. This has been done before historically. Jews in occupied areas surrounding Germany would often need a concealable weapon. Not having a pistol on hand they'd chop down rifles. They'd then fabricate there own reduced loads.
I'm well aware of what 200yds looks like, I'm confident that I could do it with the irons on my Ar, Mosin, SKS, or AK (I practice with 8" steel plates).
A scope would just make it all that much easier. I wouldn't try to run and shoot. My strategy would be shoot prone, then book it. For somone less experienced than I, I'm confident they could do 75yds with little to no training.
You can stockpile 10+ years of equipment in one area without ever having to leave 0.o?
"My strategy would be shoot prone"
Wow you people really arn't getting the image lol. You prone in the middle of a street in a city, a zombie comes up behind you, hey guess what, your screwed. Go ahead and try to sprawl up from a prone position and try to outrun a zombie. (Fast or slow).
Think of it like L4D, now imagine you proned to shoot all those buggers coming down an alley way, oh cool you popped off a few headshots, oh wait an entire horde of them just came up behind you and you cant get back up.
All of these shots should be either standing, or MAYBE crouched. If not, then you shouldn't be shooting aforementioned target.
And if you take out the powder your just going to make the bullet so weak your better off saving it for closer range targets anyway.
This isn't a little strip of field that you can lie down and shoot at zombies all day, this is, you surrounded in a city full of them and your trying to get in and out <.<. Which is going to be at least 50% of the time your going to be scavenging, the other 20% barricading, 20% sleeping/eating/etc., 10% actually holding down your AO from swarms attacking you.
This is where are disagreement stems from. You're thinking of it like a video game, I'm thinking of it like real life. You're bringing in strategies that would likely work in a game, I'm bringing in strategies that are likely to work in real life.
-
So your a master of survival and scavenging and can pull food and ammo out of your ass after a few years of surviving?
Stockpile!
thats the whole point of not shooting till they see you moron, which is why I've been talking about close range, inner-building fighting.
Pistols have something nice called a magazine, very handy when you need to reload.
Good luck finding plentiful subsonic rounds 0.o. Subsonic rounds only muffle the sound of the bullet, not the actual metal parts of the gun. So if your shooting anything that is out of range of hearing the slide move and lock or you pumping the gun, your wasting ammunition again.
You get ammo and food in buildings, not big nice fields with random stands sitting around, If your shooting at all, its going to be things almost right in front of you. If your running out into the street shooting things at 200 yards who don't even notice you stealing some food and ammo, Good job you caught all of their attention and now theyre going to be chasing your ass down.
http://www.grsc.com/images_crs/200_yards.jpg
Good luck shooting something that far without being in a good position, with iron sights, and relatively calm. And good luck being calm if 100 of these bastards are running at you. And if this is the head-dead zombies (only killed with a headshot) your screwed even worse while chasing you.
You are correct in that they muffle only the sound of the bullet. However working a lever action isn't that loud. Also making subsonic ammo isn't hard at all. Especially if you have reloading equipment. Remove bullet, empty powder to desired level, but back bullet. This has been done before historically. Jews in occupied areas surrounding Germany would often need a concealable weapon. Not having a pistol on hand they'd chop down rifles. They'd then fabricate there own reduced loads.
I'm well aware of what 200yds looks like, I'm confident that I could do it with the irons on my Ar, Mosin, SKS, or AK (I practice with 8" steel plates).
A scope would just make it all that much easier. I wouldn't try to run and shoot. My strategy would be shoot prone, then book it. For somone less experienced than I, I'm confident they could do 75yds with little to no training.
You can stockpile 10+ years of equipment in one area without ever having to leave 0.o?
"My strategy would be shoot prone"
Wow you people really arn't getting the image lol. You prone in the middle of a street in a city, a zombie comes up behind you, hey guess what, your screwed. Go ahead and try to sprawl up from a prone position and try to outrun a zombie. (Fast or slow).
Think of it like L4D, now imagine you proned to shoot all those buggers coming down an alley way, oh cool you popped off a few headshots, oh wait an entire horde of them just came up behind you and you cant get back up.
All of these shots should be either standing, or MAYBE crouched. If not, then you shouldn't be shooting aforementioned target.
And if you take out the powder your just going to make the bullet so weak your better off saving it for closer range targets anyway.
This isn't a little strip of field that you can lie down and shoot at zombies all day, this is, you surrounded in a city full of them and your trying to get in and out <.<. Which is going to be at least 50% of the time your going to be scavenging, the other 20% barricading, 20% sleeping/eating/etc., 10% actually holding down your AO from swarms attacking you.
This is where are disagreement stems from. You're thinking of it like a video game, I'm thinking of it like real life. You're bringing in strategies that would likely work in a game, I'm bringing in strategies that are likely to work in real life.
Real life? Zombies are never going to be real so...
Also you still think a .22 lr is a good round.
-
Real life? Zombies are never going to be real so...
Until they do!
Also you still think a .22 lr is a good round.
Yes, it's a great round.
-
Think of it like L4D
No. This thinking of it like L4D is the reason you're having this disagreement, and the reason you're on the wrong side. In fact, I suggest the contrary, you stop thinking of anything like L4D forever.
Hell, if they weren't going to bother making it anything approaching realistic they could have at least made it fun, but they didn't and its success baffles me.
So your a master of survival and scavenging and can pull food and ammo out of your ass after a few years of surviving?
Stockpile!
thats the whole point of not shooting till they see you moron, which is why I've been talking about close range, inner-building fighting.
Pistols have something nice called a magazine, very handy when you need to reload.
Good luck finding plentiful subsonic rounds 0.o. Subsonic rounds only muffle the sound of the bullet, not the actual metal parts of the gun. So if your shooting anything that is out of range of hearing the slide move and lock or you pumping the gun, your wasting ammunition again.
You get ammo and food in buildings, not big nice fields with random stands sitting around, If your shooting at all, its going to be things almost right in front of you. If your running out into the street shooting things at 200 yards who don't even notice you stealing some food and ammo, Good job you caught all of their attention and now theyre going to be chasing your ass down.
http://www.grsc.com/images_crs/200_yards.jpg
Good luck shooting something that far without being in a good position, with iron sights, and relatively calm. And good luck being calm if 100 of these bastards are running at you. And if this is the head-dead zombies (only killed with a headshot) your screwed even worse while chasing you.
You are correct in that they muffle only the sound of the bullet. However working a lever action isn't that loud. Also making subsonic ammo isn't hard at all. Especially if you have reloading equipment. Remove bullet, empty powder to desired level, but back bullet. This has been done before historically. Jews in occupied areas surrounding Germany would often need a concealable weapon. Not having a pistol on hand they'd chop down rifles. They'd then fabricate there own reduced loads.
I'm well aware of what 200yds looks like, I'm confident that I could do it with the irons on my Ar, Mosin, SKS, or AK (I practice with 8" steel plates).
A scope would just make it all that much easier. I wouldn't try to run and shoot. My strategy would be shoot prone, then book it. For somone less experienced than I, I'm confident they could do 75yds with little to no training.
You can stockpile 10+ years of equipment in one area without ever having to leave 0.o?
"My strategy would be shoot prone"
Wow you people really arn't getting the image lol. You prone in the middle of a street in a city, a zombie comes up behind you, hey guess what, your screwed. Go ahead and try to sprawl up from a prone position and try to outrun a zombie. (Fast or slow).
Think of it like L4D, now imagine you proned to shoot all those buggers coming down an alley way, oh cool you popped off a few headshots, oh wait an entire horde of them just came up behind you and you cant get back up.
All of these shots should be either standing, or MAYBE crouched. If not, then you shouldn't be shooting aforementioned target.
And if you take out the powder your just going to make the bullet so weak your better off saving it for closer range targets anyway.
This isn't a little strip of field that you can lie down and shoot at zombies all day, this is, you surrounded in a city full of them and your trying to get in and out <.<. Which is going to be at least 50% of the time your going to be scavenging, the other 20% barricading, 20% sleeping/eating/etc., 10% actually holding down your AO from swarms attacking you.
This is where are disagreement stems from. You're thinking of it like a video game, I'm thinking of it like real life. You're bringing in strategies that would likely work in a game, I'm bringing in strategies that are likely to work in real life.
Actually its quite the contrary, your thinking of it like a video game, you guys think its a video game, Sure let me calmly prone here, take aim at a single target and score a single headshot at 200 yards. Im thinking of this practically and I was just using a game as an example. You are surrounded, you dont have time to lay down and pick off 1 or 2 guys. Your using shooting stationary targets at a range as your example So this is where you disagreement stems. My logic is practical, yours is fantasy.
-
Actually its quite the contrary, your thinking of it like a video game, you guys think its a video game, Sure let me calmly prone here, take aim at a single target and score a single headshot at 200 yards. Im thinking of this practically and I was just using a game as an example. You are surrounded, you dont have time to lay down and pick off 1 or 2 guys. Your using shooting stationary targets at a range as your example So this is where you disagreement stems. My logic is practical, yours is fantasy.
I never fully elaborated, I have also shot moving targets at near that range too. I have pictures (I'll PM them if needed, they're graphic) of a coyote I shot in the head with my Ar-15 at about 185yds. It wasn't stationary, it was walking with a calm gate. This shot was off hand too, I wasn't prone. I was also in my underwear if that makes any difference.
Also prone is a legitimate combat position, the military pounds it into our soldiers heads for a reason.
-
So, what vehicles do you plan on using when the dead come-a-shuffling?
I'm thinking an old-fashioned bin lorry (garbage truck) mainly. Very strong, low centre of gravity (for its size), designed for stop-start travel as well as distance driving, plenty of space for storage. In the back I'd have mountain bikes for scouting and for emergencies calling for the abandonment of the truck.
-
Actually its quite the contrary, your thinking of it like a video game, you guys think its a video game, Sure let me calmly prone here, take aim at a single target and score a single headshot at 200 yards. Im thinking of this practically and I was just using a game as an example. You are surrounded, you dont have time to lay down and pick off 1 or 2 guys. Your using shooting stationary targets at a range as your example So this is where you disagreement stems. My logic is practical, yours is fantasy.
I never fully elaborated, I have also shot moving targets at near that range too. I have pictures (I'll PM them if needed, they're graphic) of a coyote I shot in the head with my Ar-15 at about 185yds. It wasn't stationary, it was walking with a calm gate. This shot was off hand too, I wasn't prone. I was also in my underwear if that makes any difference.
Also prone is a legitimate combat position, the military pounds it into our soldiers heads for a reason.
Its not a legitimate position when your surrounded by enemies who will do what they can to surround you and grab you, you have to remain constantly on the move. And congratulations on the shot, I'm not saying you cant shoot a moving target at that distance, im saying you cant calmly shoot 20 of them running toward you at that distance, or 100 of them shuffling towards you, around you, so your better off running.
Like I've said 100 times though, if your on the roof of your stronghold and theres one straggler just hanging out in the distance, I'd be the first one to go prone and pick that bastard off.
So, what vehicles do you plan on using when the dead come-a-shuffling?
I'm thinking an old-fashioned bin lorry (garbage truck) mainly. Very strong, low centre of gravity (for its size), designed for stop-start travel as well as distance driving, plenty of space for storage. In the back I'd have mountain bikes for scouting and for emergencies calling for the abandonment of the truck.
I can't remember the model truck my buddies dad has, but its a nice pickup truck with a sturdy bed. I actually like the mountain bike idea, usually we thought of using motorcycles for scouting and quick movement but the ability to have the bikes in the back of the truck is a great idea.
-
You should never get surrounded by zombies, so "zombies getting you from behind while you're prone" is a terrible argument against it. And I don't think anyone here is suggesting to go prone while 50 zombies are headed your way from 150 yds. If there are 10 zombies, 100 yds away and shambling toward you with a lurching gate (so a reasonably fast speed), and you're fairly tired (you're getting ready to set up a shelter), would you go prone and pick them off, or would you keep running until you found a safe place? If you say "I'd let them get closer and then kill them" you're retarded and won't last long enough that we'd have to worry about you anyway.
-
You should never get surrounded by zombies, so "zombies getting you from behind while you're prone" is a terrible argument against it. And I don't think anyone here is suggesting to go prone while 50 zombies are headed your way from 150 yds. If there are 10 zombies, 100 yds away and shambling toward you with a lurching gate (so a reasonably fast speed), and you're fairly tired (you're getting ready to set up a shelter), would you go prone and pick them off, or would you keep running until you found a safe place? If you say "I'd let them get closer and then kill them" you're retarded and won't last long enough that we'd have to worry about you anyway.
Im going to say this as nicely as possible, can you not be stupid and ignore my other posts?
I wouldn't be setting up a shelter because this situation would be when im getting supplies for my shelter thats probably reasonably far away.
You would be surrounded if your in a city, you don't know what buildings have a few of the bastards in them, this isnt a stupid video game where the enemies are always ahead of you. Your going through a city trying to hit a few stores, your not clearing every building on the way. You shoot a gun at all, they start pouring from every building around you.
God damn i sound like a broken record because people cant read at least a few posts to understand what someones trying to say.
-
You should never get surrounded by zombies, so "zombies getting you from behind while you're prone" is a terrible argument against it. And I don't think anyone here is suggesting to go prone while 50 zombies are headed your way from 150 yds. If there are 10 zombies, 100 yds away and shambling toward you with a lurching gate (so a reasonably fast speed), and you're fairly tired (you're getting ready to set up a shelter), would you go prone and pick them off, or would you keep running until you found a safe place? If you say "I'd let them get closer and then kill them" you're retarded and won't last long enough that we'd have to worry about you anyway.
Im going to say this as nicely as possible, can you not be stupid and ignore my other posts?
I wouldn't be setting up a shelter because this situation would be when im getting supplies for my shelter thats probably reasonably far away.
You would be surrounded if your in a city, you don't know what buildings have a few of the bastards in them, this isnt a stupid video game where the enemies are always ahead of you. Your going through a city trying to hit a few stores, your not clearing every building on the way. You shoot a gun at all, they start pouring from every building around you.
God damn i sound like a broken record because people cant read at least a few posts to understand what someones trying to say.
So you intend to go into built-up areas, far from your base, using loud-ass guns (not even a damn crossbow or something, so you would be quieter, do more damage per bolt on average and be able to make ammunition on the spot if you have a pen knife and some wood), not clear a path, presumably be away from your vehicle, and you're going to fucking confront them? You're right to be ignored, all your sage wisdom will do is kill anyone gullible enough to take it to heart, yourself included.
-
You should never get surrounded by zombies, so "zombies getting you from behind while you're prone" is a terrible argument against it. And I don't think anyone here is suggesting to go prone while 50 zombies are headed your way from 150 yds. If there are 10 zombies, 100 yds away and shambling toward you with a lurching gate (so a reasonably fast speed), and you're fairly tired (you're getting ready to set up a shelter), would you go prone and pick them off, or would you keep running until you found a safe place? If you say "I'd let them get closer and then kill them" you're retarded and won't last long enough that we'd have to worry about you anyway.
Im going to say this as nicely as possible, can you not be stupid and ignore my other posts?
I wouldn't be setting up a shelter because this situation would be when im getting supplies for my shelter thats probably reasonably far away.
You would be surrounded if your in a city, you don't know what buildings have a few of the bastards in them, this isnt a stupid video game where the enemies are always ahead of you. Your going through a city trying to hit a few stores, your not clearing every building on the way. You shoot a gun at all, they start pouring from every building around you.
God damn i sound like a broken record because people cant read at least a few posts to understand what someones trying to say.
So you intend to go into built-up areas, far from your base, using loud-ass guns (not even a damn crossbow or something, so you would be quieter, do more damage per bolt on average and be able to make ammunition on the spot if you have a pen knife and some wood), not clear a path, presumably be away from your vehicle, and you're going to fucking confront them? You're right to be ignored, all your sage wisdom will do is kill anyone gullible enough to take it to heart, yourself included.
This is kind of what I was getting at. If you're giving the zombies a fair chance, you're doing it wrong. The goal is not put yourself in a situation where you can get surrounded in the first place.
Also I like the crossbow idea, I wouldn't want one as a substitute for a gun. However it's characteristics could make it quite useful in more specialized situations. Maybe even making a gun that fires crossbow bolts using compressed air.
-
You should never get surrounded by zombies, so "zombies getting you from behind while you're prone" is a terrible argument against it. And I don't think anyone here is suggesting to go prone while 50 zombies are headed your way from 150 yds. If there are 10 zombies, 100 yds away and shambling toward you with a lurching gate (so a reasonably fast speed), and you're fairly tired (you're getting ready to set up a shelter), would you go prone and pick them off, or would you keep running until you found a safe place? If you say "I'd let them get closer and then kill them" you're retarded and won't last long enough that we'd have to worry about you anyway.
Im going to say this as nicely as possible, can you not be stupid and ignore my other posts?
I wouldn't be setting up a shelter because this situation would be when im getting supplies for my shelter thats probably reasonably far away.
You would be surrounded if your in a city, you don't know what buildings have a few of the bastards in them, this isnt a stupid video game where the enemies are always ahead of you. Your going through a city trying to hit a few stores, your not clearing every building on the way. You shoot a gun at all, they start pouring from every building around you.
God damn i sound like a broken record because people cant read at least a few posts to understand what someones trying to say.
So you intend to go into built-up areas, far from your base, using loud-ass guns (not even a damn crossbow or something, so you would be quieter, do more damage per bolt on average and be able to make ammunition on the spot if you have a pen knife and some wood), not clear a path, presumably be away from your vehicle, and you're going to fucking confront them? You're right to be ignored, all your sage wisdom will do is kill anyone gullible enough to take it to heart, yourself included.
This is kind of what I was getting at. If you're giving the zombies a fair chance, you're doing it wrong. The goal is not put yourself in a situation where you can get surrounded in the first place.
Also I like the crossbow idea, I wouldn't want one as a substitute for a gun. However it's characteristics could make it quite useful in more specialized situations. Maybe even making a gun that fires crossbow bolts using compressed air.
Given how lightweight modern crossbows can be, I wouldn't be averse to simply carrying one as backup or if I need to take out a small group without alerting the greater horde.
-
You should never get surrounded by zombies, so "zombies getting you from behind while you're prone" is a terrible argument against it. And I don't think anyone here is suggesting to go prone while 50 zombies are headed your way from 150 yds. If there are 10 zombies, 100 yds away and shambling toward you with a lurching gate (so a reasonably fast speed), and you're fairly tired (you're getting ready to set up a shelter), would you go prone and pick them off, or would you keep running until you found a safe place? If you say "I'd let them get closer and then kill them" you're retarded and won't last long enough that we'd have to worry about you anyway.
Im going to say this as nicely as possible, can you not be stupid and ignore my other posts?
I wouldn't be setting up a shelter because this situation would be when im getting supplies for my shelter thats probably reasonably far away.
You would be surrounded if your in a city, you don't know what buildings have a few of the bastards in them, this isnt a stupid video game where the enemies are always ahead of you. Your going through a city trying to hit a few stores, your not clearing every building on the way. You shoot a gun at all, they start pouring from every building around you.
God damn i sound like a broken record because people cant read at least a few posts to understand what someones trying to say.
So you intend to go into built-up areas, far from your base, using loud-ass guns (not even a damn crossbow or something, so you would be quieter, do more damage per bolt on average and be able to make ammunition on the spot if you have a pen knife and some wood), not clear a path, presumably be away from your vehicle, and you're going to fucking confront them? You're right to be ignored, all your sage wisdom will do is kill anyone gullible enough to take it to heart, yourself included.
This is kind of what I was getting at. If you're giving the zombies a fair chance, you're doing it wrong. The goal is not put yourself in a situation where you can get surrounded in the first place.
Also I like the crossbow idea, I wouldn't want one as a substitute for a gun. However it's characteristics could make it quite useful in more specialized situations. Maybe even making a gun that fires crossbow bolts using compressed air.
Given how lightweight modern crossbows can be, I wouldn't be averse to simply carrying one as backup or if I need to take out a small group without alerting the greater horde.
That's the role I was thinking it would be good at (light, quiet, and powerful), a womens compound bow may also be fitting.
-
Because when your in the store collecting items a crossbow that at least takes more than 2 seconds to reload and can get at most 1 kill per bolt is going to save you? I don't plan on doing this alone either. If it was just me i would hit quieter outer laying stores. If there's a lot of us, were going to have to hit a city eventually. Drive a truck in, parked outside at least a few buddies in the truck waiting with some heavy weapons (theyre not running around), few people go in with light weapons so they can get in and out after raiding a few stores. And boom your on your way back with nothing weighing you down..
This got really boring because of how random you guys are with your points, first you state that your going to have a good 200 yards to pick off as many guys as you want, then you comment your going to bring a 1 shot weapon to try to raid a store. Cool you shoot 1, another comes behind you and hey you cant do anything to him without getting close.
Have fun with your being Prone in populated areas and crossbows when trying to take out a moderate number of targets quickly and get out.
-
Because when your in the store collecting items a crossbow that at least takes more than 2 seconds to reload and can get at most 1 kill per bolt is going to save you? I don't plan on doing this alone either. If it was just me i would hit quieter outer laying stores. If there's a lot of us, were going to have to hit a city eventually. Drive a truck in, parked outside at least a few buddies in the truck waiting with some heavy weapons (theyre not running around), few people go in with light weapons so they can get in and out after raiding a few stores. And boom your on your way back with nothing weighing you down..
This got really boring because of how random you guys are with your points, first you state that your going to have a good 200 yards to pick off as many guys as you want, then you comment your going to bring a 1 shot weapon to try to raid a store. Cool you shoot 1, another comes behind you and hey you cant do anything to him without getting close.
Have fun with your being Prone in populated areas and crossbows when trying to take out a moderate number of targets quickly and get out.
You think you're going to take out any number of them with a weapon that alerts every other zombie in a mile radius? You expect a bullet to take out more than one zombie?
If you're planning to raid a built-up area you're not going to have 200 yards. Tactics need to change depending on the situation. Also, semi-automatics crossbows are in use.
-
Because when your in the store collecting items a crossbow that at least takes more than 2 seconds to reload and can get at most 1 kill per bolt is going to save you? I don't plan on doing this alone either. If it was just me i would hit quieter outer laying stores. If there's a lot of us, were going to have to hit a city eventually. Drive a truck in, parked outside at least a few buddies in the truck waiting with some heavy weapons (theyre not running around), few people go in with light weapons so they can get in and out after raiding a few stores. And boom your on your way back with nothing weighing you down..
This got really boring because of how random you guys are with your points, first you state that your going to have a good 200 yards to pick off as many guys as you want, then you comment your going to bring a 1 shot weapon to try to raid a store. Cool you shoot 1, another comes behind you and hey you cant do anything to him without getting close.
Have fun with your being Prone in populated areas and crossbows when trying to take out a moderate number of targets quickly and get out.
You think you're going to take out any number of them with a weapon that alerts every other zombie in a mile radius? You expect a bullet to take out more than one zombie?
If you're planning to raid a built-up area you're not going to have 200 yards. Tactics need to change depending on the situation. Also, semi-automatics crossbows are in use.
Thats kind of the point of doing things quickly, which has been my point the entire time, everyone else has been saying the contrary <.<, and a pistol magazine is much smaller and plentiful.
I tried looking up a semi-automatic crossbow but it seems pretty impossible without personally pulling the the loader back yourself, which does take an amount of time. I think I found something but it still requires you cock the crossbow, which defeats the purpose of taking down every target in the store quickly.
And all of the "zombie theorists" say that zombies mainly operate on smell because of their lacking eye sight and decent hearing, so either way theyre going to start swarming to you. So good luck with a stealth weapon when you have bloodhounds on you :D. Being quiet is nice, but I'd rather be as quick and efficient as possible, not trying to tip toe through glass with an unnecessary weapon for a supply raid.
-
Because when your in the store collecting items a crossbow that at least takes more than 2 seconds to reload and can get at most 1 kill per bolt is going to save you? I don't plan on doing this alone either. If it was just me i would hit quieter outer laying stores. If there's a lot of us, were going to have to hit a city eventually. Drive a truck in, parked outside at least a few buddies in the truck waiting with some heavy weapons (theyre not running around), few people go in with light weapons so they can get in and out after raiding a few stores. And boom your on your way back with nothing weighing you down..
This got really boring because of how random you guys are with your points, first you state that your going to have a good 200 yards to pick off as many guys as you want, then you comment your going to bring a 1 shot weapon to try to raid a store. Cool you shoot 1, another comes behind you and hey you cant do anything to him without getting close.
Have fun with your being Prone in populated areas and crossbows when trying to take out a moderate number of targets quickly and get out.
You think you're going to take out any number of them with a weapon that alerts every other zombie in a mile radius? You expect a bullet to take out more than one zombie?
If you're planning to raid a built-up area you're not going to have 200 yards. Tactics need to change depending on the situation. Also, semi-automatics crossbows are in use.
Thats kind of the point of doing things quickly, which has been my point the entire time, everyone else has been saying the contrary <.<, and a pistol magazine is much smaller and plentiful.
I tried looking up a semi-automatic crossbow but it seems pretty impossible without personally pulling the the loader back yourself, which does take an amount of time. I think I found something but it still requires you cock the crossbow, which defeats the purpose of taking down every target in the store quickly.
And all of the "zombie theorists" say that zombies mainly operate on smell because of their lacking eye sight and decent hearing, so either way theyre going to start swarming to you. So good luck with a stealth weapon when you have bloodhounds on you :D. Being quiet is nice, but I'd rather be as quick and efficient as possible, not trying to tip toe through glass with an unnecessary weapon for a supply raid.
I already dealt with that. Pet zombie to use them to make you stink like zombies.
-
Because when your in the store collecting items a crossbow that at least takes more than 2 seconds to reload and can get at most 1 kill per bolt is going to save you? I don't plan on doing this alone either. If it was just me i would hit quieter outer laying stores. If there's a lot of us, were going to have to hit a city eventually. Drive a truck in, parked outside at least a few buddies in the truck waiting with some heavy weapons (theyre not running around), few people go in with light weapons so they can get in and out after raiding a few stores. And boom your on your way back with nothing weighing you down..
This got really boring because of how random you guys are with your points, first you state that your going to have a good 200 yards to pick off as many guys as you want, then you comment your going to bring a 1 shot weapon to try to raid a store. Cool you shoot 1, another comes behind you and hey you cant do anything to him without getting close.
Have fun with your being Prone in populated areas and crossbows when trying to take out a moderate number of targets quickly and get out.
You think you're going to take out any number of them with a weapon that alerts every other zombie in a mile radius? You expect a bullet to take out more than one zombie?
If you're planning to raid a built-up area you're not going to have 200 yards. Tactics need to change depending on the situation. Also, semi-automatics crossbows are in use.
Thats kind of the point of doing things quickly, which has been my point the entire time, everyone else has been saying the contrary <.<, and a pistol magazine is much smaller and plentiful.
I tried looking up a semi-automatic crossbow but it seems pretty impossible without personally pulling the the loader back yourself, which does take an amount of time. I think I found something but it still requires you cock the crossbow, which defeats the purpose of taking down every target in the store quickly.
And all of the "zombie theorists" say that zombies mainly operate on smell because of their lacking eye sight and decent hearing, so either way theyre going to start swarming to you. So good luck with a stealth weapon when you have bloodhounds on you :D. Being quiet is nice, but I'd rather be as quick and efficient as possible, not trying to tip toe through glass with an unnecessary weapon for a supply raid.
I already dealt with that. Pet zombie to use them to make you stink like zombies.
I was actually thinking about that, but if zombies eat humans, in order to pee they need to eat, so therefore your bathing in the urine of the remains of your neighbor, your ex-girlfriend, and that bitchy bus driver of yours?
-
Because when your in the store collecting items a crossbow that at least takes more than 2 seconds to reload and can get at most 1 kill per bolt is going to save you? I don't plan on doing this alone either. If it was just me i would hit quieter outer laying stores. If there's a lot of us, were going to have to hit a city eventually. Drive a truck in, parked outside at least a few buddies in the truck waiting with some heavy weapons (theyre not running around), few people go in with light weapons so they can get in and out after raiding a few stores. And boom your on your way back with nothing weighing you down..
This got really boring because of how random you guys are with your points, first you state that your going to have a good 200 yards to pick off as many guys as you want, then you comment your going to bring a 1 shot weapon to try to raid a store. Cool you shoot 1, another comes behind you and hey you cant do anything to him without getting close.
Have fun with your being Prone in populated areas and crossbows when trying to take out a moderate number of targets quickly and get out.
You think you're going to take out any number of them with a weapon that alerts every other zombie in a mile radius? You expect a bullet to take out more than one zombie?
If you're planning to raid a built-up area you're not going to have 200 yards. Tactics need to change depending on the situation. Also, semi-automatics crossbows are in use.
Thats kind of the point of doing things quickly, which has been my point the entire time, everyone else has been saying the contrary <.<, and a pistol magazine is much smaller and plentiful.
I tried looking up a semi-automatic crossbow but it seems pretty impossible without personally pulling the the loader back yourself, which does take an amount of time. I think I found something but it still requires you cock the crossbow, which defeats the purpose of taking down every target in the store quickly.
And all of the "zombie theorists" say that zombies mainly operate on smell because of their lacking eye sight and decent hearing, so either way theyre going to start swarming to you. So good luck with a stealth weapon when you have bloodhounds on you :D. Being quiet is nice, but I'd rather be as quick and efficient as possible, not trying to tip toe through glass with an unnecessary weapon for a supply raid.
I already dealt with that. Pet zombie to use them to make you stink like zombies.
I was actually thinking about that, but if zombies eat humans, in order to pee they need to eat, so therefore your bathing in the urine of the remains of your neighbor, your ex-girlfriend, and that bitchy bus driver of yours?
Why would I bathe in their urine? I'd rub myself ALL OVER THOSE FUCKERS. Like, a ball pit, but full of zombie parts.
-
Because when your in the store collecting items a crossbow that at least takes more than 2 seconds to reload and can get at most 1 kill per bolt is going to save you? I don't plan on doing this alone either. If it was just me i would hit quieter outer laying stores. If there's a lot of us, were going to have to hit a city eventually. Drive a truck in, parked outside at least a few buddies in the truck waiting with some heavy weapons (theyre not running around), few people go in with light weapons so they can get in and out after raiding a few stores. And boom your on your way back with nothing weighing you down..
This got really boring because of how random you guys are with your points, first you state that your going to have a good 200 yards to pick off as many guys as you want, then you comment your going to bring a 1 shot weapon to try to raid a store. Cool you shoot 1, another comes behind you and hey you cant do anything to him without getting close.
Have fun with your being Prone in populated areas and crossbows when trying to take out a moderate number of targets quickly and get out.
You think you're going to take out any number of them with a weapon that alerts every other zombie in a mile radius? You expect a bullet to take out more than one zombie?
If you're planning to raid a built-up area you're not going to have 200 yards. Tactics need to change depending on the situation. Also, semi-automatics crossbows are in use.
Thats kind of the point of doing things quickly, which has been my point the entire time, everyone else has been saying the contrary <.<, and a pistol magazine is much smaller and plentiful.
I tried looking up a semi-automatic crossbow but it seems pretty impossible without personally pulling the the loader back yourself, which does take an amount of time. I think I found something but it still requires you cock the crossbow, which defeats the purpose of taking down every target in the store quickly.
And all of the "zombie theorists" say that zombies mainly operate on smell because of their lacking eye sight and decent hearing, so either way theyre going to start swarming to you. So good luck with a stealth weapon when you have bloodhounds on you :D. Being quiet is nice, but I'd rather be as quick and efficient as possible, not trying to tip toe through glass with an unnecessary weapon for a supply raid.
I already dealt with that. Pet zombie to use them to make you stink like zombies.
I was actually thinking about that, but if zombies eat humans, in order to pee they need to eat, so therefore your bathing in the urine of the remains of your neighbor, your ex-girlfriend, and that bitchy bus driver of yours?
Why would I bathe in their urine? I'd rub myself ALL OVER THOSE FUCKERS. Like, a ball pit, but full of zombie parts.
I was comparing it to "hardcore" hunters who bathe in deer piss :p. What if you had a cut and by rolling in the blood you become a zombie?
-
Why would I have an untreated, open wound?
If I did, I wouldn't be jumping in zombie parts.
-
Why would I have an untreated, open wound?
If I did, I wouldn't be jumping in zombie parts.
Touche, what if you were REALLY thirsty at the time and decided to take a sip of zombie blood.
-
Why would I have an untreated, open wound?
If I did, I wouldn't be jumping in zombie parts.
Touche, what if you were REALLY thirsty at the time and decided to take a sip of zombie blood.
Then I'd go searching for you. From what I've read of your plans, you're pretty much zombie food.
-
Why would I have an untreated, open wound?
If I did, I wouldn't be jumping in zombie parts.
Touche, what if you were REALLY thirsty at the time and decided to take a sip of zombie blood.
Then I'd go searching for you. From what I've read of your plans, you're pretty much zombie food.
Good luck getting me with a .45 ACP, .22LR, .308, or even my friend bowie knife through your skull ;D.
Or the ever so popular 12 gauge <3
-
Why would I have an untreated, open wound?
If I did, I wouldn't be jumping in zombie parts.
Touche, what if you were REALLY thirsty at the time and decided to take a sip of zombie blood.
Then I'd go searching for you. From what I've read of your plans, you're pretty much zombie food.
Good luck getting me with a .45 ACP, .22LR, .308, or even my friend bowie knife through your skull ;D.
Or the ever so popular 12 gauge <3
You'll already be long dead by the time he gets to you.
-
I think I'd go zombie early on just so later I could be like "I was totally one of the first zombies".
-
I think I'd go zombie early on just so later I could be like "I was totally one of the first zombies".
and ill remember you as that zombie i killed..... out of the 100,000...... yeah..
Why would I have an untreated, open wound?
If I did, I wouldn't be jumping in zombie parts.
Touche, what if you were REALLY thirsty at the time and decided to take a sip of zombie blood.
Then I'd go searching for you. From what I've read of your plans, you're pretty much zombie food.
Good luck getting me with a .45 ACP, .22LR, .308, or even my friend bowie knife through your skull ;D.
Or the ever so popular 12 gauge <3
You'll already be long dead by the time he gets to you.
Itll be enjoyable hearing of you starving, getting swarmed, and/or running out of ammo and saying screw it when this shiz goes down in 2012
-
I think I'd go zombie early on just so later I could be like "I was totally one of the first zombies".
and ill remember you as that zombie i killed..... out of the 100,000...... yeah..
Why would I have an untreated, open wound?
If I did, I wouldn't be jumping in zombie parts.
Touche, what if you were REALLY thirsty at the time and decided to take a sip of zombie blood.
Then I'd go searching for you. From what I've read of your plans, you're pretty much zombie food.
Good luck getting me with a .45 ACP, .22LR, .308, or even my friend bowie knife through your skull ;D.
Or the ever so popular 12 gauge <3
You'll already be long dead by the time he gets to you.
Itll be enjoyable hearing of you starving, getting swarmed, and/or running out of ammo and saying screw it when this shiz goes down in 2012
Wait, you think I'm going to starve, get swarmed or run out of ammo? You whose only plan for getting food is to run into crowded areas with zombie-attracting guns blazing and loot it? Are you that retarded? Those three fates are the only possible outcomes for your "tactics".
-
I think I'd go zombie early on just so later I could be like "I was totally one of the first zombies".
and ill remember you as that zombie i killed..... out of the 100,000...... yeah..
Why would I have an untreated, open wound?
If I did, I wouldn't be jumping in zombie parts.
Touche, what if you were REALLY thirsty at the time and decided to take a sip of zombie blood.
Then I'd go searching for you. From what I've read of your plans, you're pretty much zombie food.
Good luck getting me with a .45 ACP, .22LR, .308, or even my friend bowie knife through your skull ;D.
Or the ever so popular 12 gauge <3
You'll already be long dead by the time he gets to you.
Itll be enjoyable hearing of you starving, getting swarmed, and/or running out of ammo and saying screw it when this shiz goes down in 2012
Wait, you think I'm going to starve, get swarmed or run out of ammo? You whose only plan for getting food is to run into crowded areas with zombie-attracting guns blazing and loot it? Are you that retarded? Those three fates are the only possible outcomes for your "tactics".
Ignorance is bliss eh? Already said light weapons because i plan on shooting as little as possible, I'm saying this after outerlaying regions of stores and farms are already ransacked so the city is the one possible solution, personally I'd rather make 1 risky trip to the city rather than a hundred trips around the area wasting gas and precious time for things that might be empty with no other store in the general vicinity.
So please whats your plan? To save enough food/ammo/clean water/etc. to survive the rest of your life?
I'd like to take a moment to voice my opinion of the retardedness of this conversation.
This is retarded.
I know but this isn't as boring as a lot of other things, I'm still slightly entertained about how serious everyone is in this thread about something being speculated lol.
-
Why not draw zombies out of cities first? Fell some trees or something, a gunshot or two outside the city and run?
That was zombies will start to head toward all the noise, and pick up more zombies along the way, until all of a sudden there aren't as many zombies in the city and you have less to worry about?
-
Why not draw zombies out of cities first? Fell some trees or something, a gunshot or two outside the city and run?
That was zombies will start to head toward all the noise, and pick up more zombies along the way, until all of a sudden there aren't as many zombies in the city and you have less to worry about?
Eh, the sound of a truck is probably more appealing then a tree falling or something falling off the roof of a building but still not a bad idea.
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
-
Back to the earlier discussion, I am of the opinion that a heavy calibre (7.62 in particular) is best. Even if you don't kill the zombie, the kinetic energy will either mutilate it or put it on its arse, giving you time to get away or massacre the son of a bitch. Also, .50 cal pistols are are retarded idea, so if I can get my hands on one I'll be toting an SLR when the day comes (I'm planning on joining the military at some point, so I'll be fine, though).
-
Back to the earlier discussion, I am of the opinion that a heavy calibre (7.62 in particular) is best. Even if you don't kill the zombie, the kinetic energy will either mutilate it or put it on its arse, giving you time to get away or massacre the son of a bitch. Also, .50 cal pistols are are retarded idea, so if I can get my hands on one I'll be toting an SLR when the day comes (I'm planning on joining the military at some point, so I'll be fine, though).
/agree on the .50 cal comment :P
I'll be sitting on my roof with a machine gun bolted into the balcony or window and just mow down some bitches :D.
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
What? All our crops come from farming, all our water comes from wells or springs or reservoirs. They don't just appear in the shop.
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
Lol. What?
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
What? All our crops come from farming, all our water comes from wells or springs or reservoirs. They don't just appear in the shop.
Stores and made to have plentiful, easy to make, easy to carry food water and supplies. Go ahead and sit for an hour at a stream filling up pales and trying to hunt deer or grow a farm somewhere. I'll be bashing down a door, taking weeks worth of food water and ammo in 1 drive by.
Then after a few weeks when I actually have a stronghold, THEN a farm and little community can be made. That wont be until years later.
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
What? All our crops come from farming, all our water comes from wells or springs or reservoirs. They don't just appear in the shop.
Stores and made to have plentiful, easy to make, easy to carry food water and supplies. Go ahead and sit for an hour at a stream filling up pales and trying to hunt deer or grow a farm somewhere. I'll be bashing down a door, taking weeks worth of food water and ammo in 1 drive by.
Then after a few weeks when I actually have a stronghold, THEN a farm and little community can be made. That wont be until years later.
You think the supplies in shops will last years? Not counting the thousands of other people who'll loot them dry in hours after the outbreak, or even the spoilage/possible infection anything that isn't tinned, that will last you two months in a large group, tops. And I doubt you live outside a big enough city to get that kind of food, and if you did you'd have tens of millions of zombies to deal with, not the 2-3000 you seem to be anticipating with your "DERP DERP MACHINE GUN ON MAH PICKUP" plan.
-
My bro just showed me this video. I'm sure it will help.
-
My bro just showed me this video. I'm sure it will help.
Nice video, some people kick ass at reloading. Now are they hitting anything?
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
What? All our crops come from farming, all our water comes from wells or springs or reservoirs. They don't just appear in the shop.
Stores and made to have plentiful, easy to make, easy to carry food water and supplies. Go ahead and sit for an hour at a stream filling up pales and trying to hunt deer or grow a farm somewhere. I'll be bashing down a door, taking weeks worth of food water and ammo in 1 drive by.
Then after a few weeks when I actually have a stronghold, THEN a farm and little community can be made. That wont be until years later.
You think the supplies in shops will last years? Not counting the thousands of other people who'll loot them dry in hours after the outbreak, or even the spoilage/possible infection anything that isn't tinned, that will last you two months in a large group, tops. And I doubt you live outside a big enough city to get that kind of food, and if you did you'd have tens of millions of zombies to deal with, not the 2-3000 you seem to be anticipating with your "DERP DERP MACHINE GUN ON MAH PICKUP" plan.
Dude I'm not hitting manhattan 0.o. And How is a bolted machine gun on the back of a pickup truck with a turnable hoist not a good idea 0.o? I think within a good number of mile radius there will be enough houses and stores to hit to last me a few years. Have fun trying to barricade and defend while your try your hand at being a farmer as the winter comes along. Try to google "how to be a farmer" before power goes out.
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
What? All our crops come from farming, all our water comes from wells or springs or reservoirs. They don't just appear in the shop.
Stores and made to have plentiful, easy to make, easy to carry food water and supplies. Go ahead and sit for an hour at a stream filling up pales and trying to hunt deer or grow a farm somewhere. I'll be bashing down a door, taking weeks worth of food water and ammo in 1 drive by.
Then after a few weeks when I actually have a stronghold, THEN a farm and little community can be made. That wont be until years later.
You think the supplies in shops will last years? Not counting the thousands of other people who'll loot them dry in hours after the outbreak, or even the spoilage/possible infection anything that isn't tinned, that will last you two months in a large group, tops. And I doubt you live outside a big enough city to get that kind of food, and if you did you'd have tens of millions of zombies to deal with, not the 2-3000 you seem to be anticipating with your "DERP DERP MACHINE GUN ON MAH PICKUP" plan.
Dude I'm not hitting manhattan 0.o. And How is a bolted machine gun on the back of a pickup truck with a turnable hoist not a good idea 0.o? I think within a good number of mile radius there will be enough houses and stores to hit to last me a few years. Have fun trying to barricade and defend while your try your hand at being a farmer as the winter comes along. Try to google "how to be a farmer" before power goes out.
I'll drive, you shoot?
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
What? All our crops come from farming, all our water comes from wells or springs or reservoirs. They don't just appear in the shop.
Stores and made to have plentiful, easy to make, easy to carry food water and supplies. Go ahead and sit for an hour at a stream filling up pales and trying to hunt deer or grow a farm somewhere. I'll be bashing down a door, taking weeks worth of food water and ammo in 1 drive by.
Then after a few weeks when I actually have a stronghold, THEN a farm and little community can be made. That wont be until years later.
You think the supplies in shops will last years? Not counting the thousands of other people who'll loot them dry in hours after the outbreak, or even the spoilage/possible infection anything that isn't tinned, that will last you two months in a large group, tops. And I doubt you live outside a big enough city to get that kind of food, and if you did you'd have tens of millions of zombies to deal with, not the 2-3000 you seem to be anticipating with your "DERP DERP MACHINE GUN ON MAH PICKUP" plan.
Dude I'm not hitting manhattan 0.o. And How is a bolted machine gun on the back of a pickup truck with a turnable hoist not a good idea 0.o? I think within a good number of mile radius there will be enough houses and stores to hit to last me a few years. Have fun trying to barricade and defend while your try your hand at being a farmer as the winter comes along. Try to google "how to be a farmer" before power goes out.
I'll drive, you shoot?
Sounds good to me, and just for shits n giggs we can bolt chainsaws into slide locks on either side of the pickup truck. Mobile impenetrable fortress :D.
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
What? All our crops come from farming, all our water comes from wells or springs or reservoirs. They don't just appear in the shop.
Stores and made to have plentiful, easy to make, easy to carry food water and supplies. Go ahead and sit for an hour at a stream filling up pales and trying to hunt deer or grow a farm somewhere. I'll be bashing down a door, taking weeks worth of food water and ammo in 1 drive by.
Then after a few weeks when I actually have a stronghold, THEN a farm and little community can be made. That wont be until years later.
You think the supplies in shops will last years? Not counting the thousands of other people who'll loot them dry in hours after the outbreak, or even the spoilage/possible infection anything that isn't tinned, that will last you two months in a large group, tops. And I doubt you live outside a big enough city to get that kind of food, and if you did you'd have tens of millions of zombies to deal with, not the 2-3000 you seem to be anticipating with your "DERP DERP MACHINE GUN ON MAH PICKUP" plan.
Dude I'm not hitting manhattan 0.o. And How is a bolted machine gun on the back of a pickup truck with a turnable hoist not a good idea 0.o? I think within a good number of mile radius there will be enough houses and stores to hit to last me a few years. Have fun trying to barricade and defend while your try your hand at being a farmer as the winter comes along. Try to google "how to be a farmer" before power goes out.
I'll drive, you shoot?
Sounds good to me, and just for shits n giggs we can bolt chainsaws into slide locks on either side of the pickup truck. Mobile impenetrable fortress :D.
What happens when we stop to refuel? I say we extend the tube to the gas tank to the bed of the truck, so no one has to leave the vehicle. Some sort of grabby device can be used to grab the gas thing. We should also keep a minimum of 15 spare gallons in the truck somewhere, for emergencies.
-
You know there's lots of food and water to be found in the world? People farm, and collect water from springs, wells and streams. It's how we get them.
Not in large quantities, which is why we have stores... So maybe doing that can let 1 person struggle. but if you have a group thats going to be a bit more difficult to do in the early - mid stages of the situation.
What? All our crops come from farming, all our water comes from wells or springs or reservoirs. They don't just appear in the shop.
Stores and made to have plentiful, easy to make, easy to carry food water and supplies. Go ahead and sit for an hour at a stream filling up pales and trying to hunt deer or grow a farm somewhere. I'll be bashing down a door, taking weeks worth of food water and ammo in 1 drive by.
Then after a few weeks when I actually have a stronghold, THEN a farm and little community can be made. That wont be until years later.
You think the supplies in shops will last years? Not counting the thousands of other people who'll loot them dry in hours after the outbreak, or even the spoilage/possible infection anything that isn't tinned, that will last you two months in a large group, tops. And I doubt you live outside a big enough city to get that kind of food, and if you did you'd have tens of millions of zombies to deal with, not the 2-3000 you seem to be anticipating with your "DERP DERP MACHINE GUN ON MAH PICKUP" plan.
Dude I'm not hitting manhattan 0.o. And How is a bolted machine gun on the back of a pickup truck with a turnable hoist not a good idea 0.o? I think within a good number of mile radius there will be enough houses and stores to hit to last me a few years. Have fun trying to barricade and defend while your try your hand at being a farmer as the winter comes along. Try to google "how to be a farmer" before power goes out.
I'll drive, you shoot?
Sounds good to me, and just for shits n giggs we can bolt chainsaws into slide locks on either side of the pickup truck. Mobile impenetrable fortress :D.
What happens when we stop to refuel? I say we extend the tube to the gas tank to the bed of the truck, so no one has to leave the vehicle. Some sort of grabby device can be used to grab the gas thing. We should also keep a minimum of 15 spare gallons in the truck somewhere, for emergencies.
(http://www.alzhiemerproducts.com/main_007.jpg)
We have the technology.
We should Bolt, tie, and tape two Pick up trucks together, cut off the bed panels that are side to side so we have a bunch of room to walk around, eat, sleep etc.
-
I semi organized my ammo. Here is a couple pics.
On the left of the top shelf is empty brass for reloading.
The TAP ammo is actually in magazines but the rest would have to be loaded if zombies came.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_0146.jpg)
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_0149.jpg)
-
I semi organized my ammo. Here is a couple pics.
On the left of the top shelf is empty brass for reloading.
The TAP ammo is actually in magazines but the rest would have to be loaded if zombies came.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_0146.jpg)
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_0149.jpg)
Nice, I keep all my mags loaded up too. Have you thought about storing you're ammo in dry boxes? I find the U.S. .30cal boxes are about perfect. I can get 500 rounds of 7.62x39 in one.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
We still want England to be afraid.
-
I have small swords on a rack on my dresser behind my chess sets. My broad sword is still waiting to be properly displayed. Does this count as an American flaunting weaponry?
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
EDIT: Just realised I fucked the quote up.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
Many gun enthusiasts are idiots. Firearms are weapons and weapons are tools, devoid of intrinsic morality, and anyone who tries to attach it is an idiot.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
Many gun enthusiasts are idiots.
And? Many are way beyond you in intelligence. Firearms are weapons and weapons are tools, devoid of intrinsic morality, and anyone who tries to attach it is an idiot.
I have never used my guns as weapons. Nor I have I used my toothbrush as a weapon.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
Many gun enthusiasts are idiots.
And? Many are way beyond you in intelligence. Firearms are weapons and weapons are tools, devoid of intrinsic morality, and anyone who tries to attach it is an idiot.
I have never used my guns as weapons. Nor I have I used my toothbrush as a weapon.
So how have you used your guns? Brushing your teeth? Indoor football?
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
Many gun enthusiasts are idiots.
And? Many are way beyond you in intelligence. Firearms are weapons and weapons are tools, devoid of intrinsic morality, and anyone who tries to attach it is an idiot.
I have never used my guns as weapons. Nor I have I used my toothbrush as a weapon.
So how have you used your guns? Brushing your teeth? Indoor football?
Target practice.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
Many gun enthusiasts are idiots.
And? Many are way beyond you in intelligence. Firearms are weapons and weapons are tools, devoid of intrinsic morality, and anyone who tries to attach it is an idiot.
I have never used my guns as weapons. Nor I have I used my toothbrush as a weapon.
So how have you used your guns? Brushing your teeth? Indoor football?
Target practice.
Why?
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
Many gun enthusiasts are idiots.
And? Many are way beyond you in intelligence. Firearms are weapons and weapons are tools, devoid of intrinsic morality, and anyone who tries to attach it is an idiot.
I have never used my guns as weapons. Nor I have I used my toothbrush as a weapon.
So how have you used your guns? Brushing your teeth? Indoor football?
Target practice.
Why?
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
Many gun enthusiasts are idiots.
And? Many are way beyond you in intelligence. Firearms are weapons and weapons are tools, devoid of intrinsic morality, and anyone who tries to attach it is an idiot.
I have never used my guns as weapons. Nor I have I used my toothbrush as a weapon.
So how have you used your guns? Brushing your teeth? Indoor football?
Target practice.
Why?
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
Perhaps I should rephrase. What is the ultimate goal? What are you practicing for?
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
Firearm
Noun
firearm (plural firearms)
A personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.
Pedantry and ignorance are a volatile combination.
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other. Weapons are used by criminals.
Many gun enthusiasts are idiots.
And? Many are way beyond you in intelligence. Firearms are weapons and weapons are tools, devoid of intrinsic morality, and anyone who tries to attach it is an idiot.
I have never used my guns as weapons. Nor I have I used my toothbrush as a weapon.
So how have you used your guns? Brushing your teeth? Indoor football?
Target practice.
Why?
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
Perhaps I should rephrase. What is the ultimate goal? What are you practicing for?
The same reason people golf. To get better. Something to do with friends.
-
The same reason people golf. To get better. Something to do with friends.
-
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
-
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Fallacy.
-
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
In a very lazy situation I've used my knife to pick something of my my teeth or to relieve my ingrown toenail. I've used my m1911 Airsoft pistol as a bookmark. I've used my .22 or my airsoft sniper rifle to practice armed drill.
I do understand your point of if the item is made for the purpose of killing it is indeed a weapon, but that word is a little more general than most think.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
In a very lazy situation I've used my knife to pick something of my my teeth or to relieve my ingrown toenail. I've used my m1911 Airsoft pistol as a bookmark. I've used my .22 or my airsoft sniper rifle to practice armed drill.
I do understand your point of if the item is made for the purpose of killing it is indeed a weapon, but that word is a little more general than most think.
You know Sokarul's trying to argue that guns aren't weapons at all, right? You'd do best not to side with him on this (or on anything else, if you agree with him you either misread his post or are horribly horribly wrong)
Also, isn't a pistol a little big to use as a bookmark? I thought it'd ruin the spine.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
In a very lazy situation I've used my knife to pick something of my my teeth or to relieve my ingrown toenail. I've used my m1911 Airsoft pistol as a bookmark. I've used my .22 or my airsoft sniper rifle to practice armed drill.
I do understand your point of if the item is made for the purpose of killing it is indeed a weapon, but that word is a little more general than most think.
You know Sokarul's trying to argue that guns aren't weapons at all, right? ...
Where did I say that?
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
And don't start pointing out the difference from firearms and guns, you've used them interchangeably and I was going to point it out, but decided that would be childish.
-
I'll never understand this American obsession with flaunting their weaponry.
Maybe it's because we are free.
I said "flaunt", not "have". A weapon is something you're supposed to conceal, otherwise whoever was going to target you will simply target some poor unarmed bastard. I'd rather get attacked then whip out Ol' Stabby and fuck 'em up than wave it around as I walk down the street and have a wee old lady get attacked in my place.
Hell, if your guns are only going to act as deterrents then why bother owning ammo at all?
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
And don't start pointing out the difference from firearms and guns, you've used them interchangeably and I was going to point it out, but decided that would be childish.
Ok, I said that. Then what did I say?
-
Many gun enthusiasts distinguish the two from each other.
-
So once again, where did I claim "You know Sokarul's trying to argue that guns aren't weapons at all, right?"?
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
How are they in terms of deliberate death?
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
How are they in terms of deliberate death?
Still fairly high.
It's not a very good weapon if you want to get away with a crime, but that does not mean it doesn't kill more people than other weapons.
(Does it really matter that most of its kills are accidents? That probably makes it more dangerous)
-
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
A car's purpose when it is built is not to kill people. In fact, lately cars have been built to try and protect the driver and other drivers in case of an accident. Guns on the other hand, are, and over the years people have built them to be even better at it.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
How are they in terms of deliberate death?
Still fairly high.
It's not a very good weapon if you want to get away with a crime, but that does not mean it doesn't kill more people than other weapons.
(Does it really matter that most of its kills are accidents? That probably makes it more dangerous)
Cancer is the biggest killer in the US, but no assassin would attempt to smoke at someone.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
How are they in terms of deliberate death?
Still fairly high.
It's not a very good weapon if you want to get away with a crime, but that does not mean it doesn't kill more people than other weapons.
(Does it really matter that most of its kills are accidents? That probably makes it more dangerous)
Cancer is the biggest killer in the US, but no assassin would attempt to smoke at someone.
THIS IS A VERY SNEAKY WAY TO COMMIT MURDER.
-
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
A car's purpose when it is built is not to kill people. In fact, lately cars have been built to try and protect the driver and other drivers in case of an accident. Guns on the other hand, are, and over the years people have built them to be even better at it.
Because this was meant to kill
(http://www.recht.fr/images/art/an2013-2313_L.jpg)
That is an extremely high end Anschuetz .22lr target rifle. It was built for one purpose, not to kill, but to make very tiny groups on paper. I wouldn't consider that a weapon.
I don't believe any item is automatically a weapon. How it's used makes all the difference. A pencil isn't a weapon. However, in the right hands it can become an effective weapon. In court when they bring out the evidence, the weapon used would be a pencil. Now is a pencil a weapon? Now don't get me wrong, a gun can be used as a weapon. All too often they are. The majority of firearms in the U.S. aren't used to kill or wound anyone, therefore the U.S. has few weapons that are guns.
-
So, an AK47 isn't made to kill people, just to make a larger spread of holes in a sheet of paper, amirite?
-
So, an AK47 isn't made to kill people, just to make a larger spread of holes in a sheet of paper, amirite?
An AK is made to send a small metal object at very high speeds. The end result is often in the death of another being but thats not what its made to do.
-
So, an AK47 isn't made to kill people, just to make a larger spread of holes in a sheet of paper, amirite?
An AK is made to send a small metal object at very high speeds. The end result is often in the death of another being but thats not what its made to do.
Considering the AK website (http://www.ak-47.us/) says:
The AKM also has a folding-stock version, designated AKMS, intended for use by riflemen in armored infantry combat vehicles such as the BMP. Except for its T-shaped, stamped-metal, folding buttstock, the AKMS is identical to the AKM. The folding-stock model can reduce its length from 868 to 699 millimeters.
I think it is safe to say it is made to shoot at other people.
Also, by that wording you use then my pipe bomb should be allowable. It is just meant to expel energy. Kinda like a microwave amiright?
-
So, an AK47 isn't made to kill people, just to make a larger spread of holes in a sheet of paper, amirite?
An AK is made to send a small metal object at very high speeds. The end result is often in the death of another being but thats not what its made to do.
Considering the AK website (http://www.ak-47.us/) says:
The AKM also has a folding-stock version, designated AKMS, intended for use by riflemen in armored infantry combat vehicles such as the BMP. Except for its T-shaped, stamped-metal, folding buttstock, the AKMS is identical to the AKM. The folding-stock model can reduce its length from 868 to 699 millimeters.
I think it is safe to say it is made to shoot at other people.
Also, by that wording you use then my pipe bomb should be allowable. It is just meant to expel energy. Kinda like a microwave amiright?
Its intended for armored infantry combat vehicles, so are rations. Military rations are intended for military uses, are they now weapons?
My wording has nothing to do with the legality of a tool, i merely wish to specify how tools should be listed
-
Its intended for armored infantry combat vehicles, so are rations. Military rations are intended for military uses, are they now weapons?
::)
-
Its intended for armored infantry combat vehicles, so are rations. Military rations are intended for military uses, are they now weapons?
::)
See what i did thar?
-
Its intended for armored infantry combat vehicles, so are rations. Military rations are intended for military uses, are they now weapons?
::)
See what i did thar?
I tired of this semantics debate. I'm sure it is clear to all parties that anything can seem harmless or harmful with the correct wording. However, semantics doesn't change the fact that a AK-47 is made for combat purposes, which means it is made to shoot at other people. Rations that are made for combat are rations that are made to eat during combat.
-
Its intended for armored infantry combat vehicles, so are rations. Military rations are intended for military uses, are they now weapons?
::)
See what i did thar?
I tired of this semantics debate. I'm sure it is clear to all parties that anything can seem harmless or harmful with the correct wording. However, semantics doesn't change the fact that a AK-47 is made for combat purposes, which means it is made to shoot at other people. Rations that are made for combat are rations that are made to eat during combat.
I've eaten military rations while rafting, so apparently i was in combat with the water itself. BY GEORGE.
-
Its intended for armored infantry combat vehicles, so are rations. Military rations are intended for military uses, are they now weapons?
::)
See what i did thar?
I tired of this semantics debate. I'm sure it is clear to all parties that anything can seem harmless or harmful with the correct wording. However, semantics doesn't change the fact that a AK-47 is made for combat purposes, which means it is made to shoot at other people. Rations that are made for combat are rations that are made to eat during combat.
I've eaten military rations while rafting, so apparently i was in combat with the water itself. BY GEORGE.
Military rations aren't for eating during combat. Only a lunatic would take a firefight as an opportunity to have nibbles.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
How are they in terms of deliberate death?
Still fairly high.
It's not a very good weapon if you want to get away with a crime, but that does not mean it doesn't kill more people than other weapons.
(Does it really matter that most of its kills are accidents? That probably makes it more dangerous)
Cancer is the biggest killer in the US, but no assassin would attempt to smoke at someone.
Sorry, you're thinking of heart disease, and many poisons are used to cause heart attacks.
But cars are used to commit murder. And commit more accidental deaths than guns.
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
How are they in terms of deliberate death?
Still fairly high.
It's not a very good weapon if you want to get away with a crime, but that does not mean it doesn't kill more people than other weapons.
(Does it really matter that most of its kills are accidents? That probably makes it more dangerous)
Cancer is the biggest killer in the US, but no assassin would attempt to smoke at someone.
Sorry, you're thinking of heart disease, and many poisons are used to cause heart attacks.
But cars are used to commit murder. And commit more accidental deaths than guns.
I thought it was heart disease too, but I checked to be safe and cancer apparently overtook it in 2004.
Also, why do accidental deaths count anyway?
-
Fallacy.
I'd love to hear what it is.
Because it is fun and because I am free to do so.
It doesn't matter how you are using it, a weapon is still a weapon.
Would I be justified with the police if I play football with pipe bombs, and therefore I keep a stack of them in my house?
Any tool can be used as a weapon. You can kill someone with a spoon, a weight, a paper bag, etc.
Besides practicality i see no difference between someone practicing shooting a gun/bow/etc., training with a sword/axe/etc., or with a football/basketball/etc.
Although, the first two are probably a bit more useful for real life situations lol.
Any tool can be used as a weapon, but when an object is a weapon by it's very nature, it is a weapon no matter how you use them.
Your car is very effective at killing. It weighs several tons and goes up to a hundred miles per hour. It is obviously built for nothing other than killing.
Cars are even the number one cause of accidental death. Much higher than any other weapon.
How are they in terms of deliberate death?
Still fairly high.
It's not a very good weapon if you want to get away with a crime, but that does not mean it doesn't kill more people than other weapons.
(Does it really matter that most of its kills are accidents? That probably makes it more dangerous)
Cancer is the biggest killer in the US, but no assassin would attempt to smoke at someone.
Sorry, you're thinking of heart disease, and many poisons are used to cause heart attacks.
But cars are used to commit murder. And commit more accidental deaths than guns.
I thought it was heart disease too, but I checked to be safe and cancer apparently overtook it in 2004.
Also, why do accidental deaths count anyway?
Because people....um....died.
-
ITT: Guns are weapons. Deal with it.
-
ITT: Guns are weapons. Deal with it.
Agreed. It's not a moral judgement, just a fact.
-
ITT: Guns are weapons. Deal with it.
Agreed. It's not a moral judgement, just a fact.
Fact is in the eyes of the beholder :).
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Yes. And the what you choose to do with it doesn't change what it actually is. Just as me using a pipe-bomb for a football doesn't change the fact that it is still a device used to cause damage to people.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Yes. And the what you choose to do with it doesn't change what it actually is. Just as me using a pipe-bomb for a football doesn't change the fact that it is still a device used to cause damage to people.
Pipe bombs are made to make explosions which usually result in causing damage.
Shavers are made to shave, but results in sometimes cutting yourself.
Axes are made to cut down things, sometimes resulting in people getting cut down.
-
Axes can be made specially for battle, and as such CAN be considered a weapon. Shavers are considered shavers.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Yes. And the what you choose to do with it doesn't change what it actually is. Just as me using a pipe-bomb for a football doesn't change the fact that it is still a device used to cause damage to people.
Pipe bombs are made to make explosions which usually result in causing damage.
Shavers are made to shave, but results in sometimes cutting yourself.
Axes are made to cut down things, sometimes resulting in people getting cut down.
Pipe bombs are made to cause a chemical reaction to occur.
Glow Sticks are made to cause a chemical reaction to occur.
Therefore I should be able to have pipe-bombs just as I am allowed to have glow sticks.
On a more serious note, guns are made to shoot bullets which usually are shot at other people.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
This has already been shown to not be true for all guns.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
This has already been shown to not be true for all guns.
Does the gun not damage the thing you are shooting at?
Not all pipebombs are made to hurt/kill things.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
-
This argument is very similar to one I had about cheerleading today. Maybe later I'll screencap the whole thing and start a thread.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
This has already been shown to not be true for all guns.
They clearly don't get the concept we're bringing forth. Is an AK a weapon/meant to kill things? I have an AK and have yet to kill or hurt anything with it. I'm likely never going to use it as a weapon, thus it isn't a weapon.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
This has already been shown to not be true for all guns.
They clearly don't get the concept we're bringing forth. Is an AK a weapon/meant to kill things? I have an AK and have yet to kill or hurt anything with it. I'm likely never going to use it as a weapon, thus it isn't a weapon.
The popes dick is still genitalia, even if he never actually uses it for its intended purpose of procreation. Also, if I'm ever near you, can I play with your AK?
-
I'd play with her AK.
-
The popes dick is still genitalia, even if he never actually uses it for its intended purpose of procreation.
Good point, however genitalia is an anatomical term. A lamp isn't genitalia, and can never be used as such. A lamp isn't a weapon, but it can be used as one. The same logic that applies to a lamp applies to a gun(or any other tangible item) in my opinion.
Also, if I'm ever near you, can I play with your AK?
Yes. Here is the only crappy cell-phone picture I have.
(https://mail.google.com/mail/?account_id=anteater7171%40gmail.com&ui=2&view=att&th=12a87decb4df1ef3&attid=0.0&disp=inline)
-
The popes dick is still genitalia, even if he never actually uses it for its intended purpose of procreation.
Good point, however genitalia is an anatomical term. A lamp isn't genitalia, and can never be used as such. A lamp isn't a weapon, but it can be used as one. The same logic that applies to a lamp applies to a gun(or any other tangible item) in my opinion.
Also, if I'm ever near you, can I play with your AK?
Yes. Here is the only crappy cell-phone picture I have.
(https://mail.google.com/mail/?account_id=anteater7171%40gmail.com&ui=2&view=att&th=12a87decb4df1ef3&attid=0.0&disp=inline)
Can't see it.
-
Hmm it works for me, try this:
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2v3lq2s.jpg)
Also an AK I used to own
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2eupz41.jpg)
-
The other one was on your gmail, or whatever, so you could see it because you were logged in. Those ones showed up though. I prefer swords. Maybe I'll post some pictures of my swords some time.
-
The other one was on your gmail, or whatever, so you could see it because you were logged in. Those ones showed up though. I prefer swords. Maybe I'll post some pictures of my swords some time.
The closest thing I have is bayonets. All the fun of a sword, but attached to a rifle!
(http://i34.tinypic.com/oi8ydc.jpg)
From top to bottom, Japanese Arisaka Bayonet, Bulgarian type-3 Ak bayonet, American M9 M-16 bayonet. For battle I'd use the Arisaka Bayonet It's basically a well made short sword (it's better quality than most "swords" available today). Also it's sharp, really sharp.
-
The other one was on your gmail, or whatever, so you could see it because you were logged in. Those ones showed up though. I prefer swords. Maybe I'll post some pictures of my swords some time.
The closest thing I have is bayonets. All the fun of a sword, but attached to a rifle!
(http://i34.tinypic.com/oi8ydc.jpg)
From top to bottom, Japanese Arisaka Bayonet, Bulgarian type-3 Ak bayonet, American M9 M-16 bayonet. For battle I'd use the Arisaka Bayonet It's basically a well made short sword (it's better quality than most "swords" available today). Also it's sharp, really sharp.
you have a tiny penis, amirite?
-
The popes dick is still genitalia, even if he never actually uses it for its intended purpose of procreation.
Good point, however genitalia is an anatomical term. A lamp isn't genitalia, and can never be used as such. A lamp isn't a weapon, but it can be used as one. The same logic that applies to a lamp applies to a gun(or any other tangible item) in my opinion.
A lamp is an improvised weapon at most. A rifle is designed with weapon-like usage in mind, but few lamp manufacturers consider the power of the lamp to bludgeon in the R&D stage, and if they do they generally try to make it as poor a club as they can.
Hmm it works for me, try this:
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2v3lq2s.jpg)
Also an AK I used to own
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2eupz41.jpg)
Why so brown shiny plastic pistol grip?
Also, I'll post some of my knives at some point. They're a man's weapon.
-
The popes dick is still genitalia, even if he never actually uses it for its intended purpose of procreation.
Good point, however genitalia is an anatomical term. A lamp isn't genitalia, and can never be used as such. A lamp isn't a weapon, but it can be used as one. The same logic that applies to a lamp applies to a gun(or any other tangible item) in my opinion.
A lamp is an improvised weapon at most. A rifle is designed with weapon-like usage in mind, but few lamp manufacturers consider the power of the lamp to bludgeon in the R&D stage, and if they do they generally try to make it as poor a club as they can.
Hmm it works for me, try this:
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2v3lq2s.jpg)
Also an AK I used to own
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2eupz41.jpg)
Why so brown shiny plastic pistol grip?
Also, I'll post some of my knives at some point. They're a man's weapon.
Good luck with your "man's weapon" when you get gunned down by someone with an assault rifle. Unless theyre throwing knives and you can actually do it then ill be impressed :).
-
The popes dick is still genitalia, even if he never actually uses it for its intended purpose of procreation.
Good point, however genitalia is an anatomical term. A lamp isn't genitalia, and can never be used as such. A lamp isn't a weapon, but it can be used as one. The same logic that applies to a lamp applies to a gun(or any other tangible item) in my opinion.
A lamp is an improvised weapon at most. A rifle is designed with weapon-like usage in mind, but few lamp manufacturers consider the power of the lamp to bludgeon in the R&D stage, and if they do they generally try to make it as poor a club as they can.
Hmm it works for me, try this:
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2v3lq2s.jpg)
Also an AK I used to own
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2eupz41.jpg)
Why so brown shiny plastic pistol grip?
Also, I'll post some of my knives at some point. They're a man's weapon.
Good luck with your "man's weapon" when you get gunned down by someone with an assault rifle. Unless theyre throwing knives and you can actually do it then ill be impressed :).
We're all knife-carrying men around here, nobody carries assault rifles around. Nonetheless, I'm fairly competent with throwing my favourite should need be and getting better.
I have a canesword, bitches.
Want. Where did you get it?
-
...
A lamp is an improvised weapon at most.
...
Tell that to the judge and see what happens.
A rifle is designed with weapon-like usage in mind, but few lamp manufacturers consider the power of the lamp to bludgeon in the R&D stage, and if they do they generally try to make it as poor a club as they can.
Is is so hard to believe that some guns are designed for target shooting? The Olympic style rifle posted was one. There are others.
I'm with anteater and that is why I said it, I don't plan on using my guns as weapons, that is why I don't call them weapons. Maybe defensive weapons, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm not going to use my guns in a criminal way. That is why the saying "Criminals carry weapons, sheepdogs carry firearms" exists. I'm sure you can figure out what is meant by sheepdog.
-
I used to have one of these
(http://www.fatiguesarmynavy.com/images/categories/cutlery.collage.jpg)
But my sister stole it.
I have a cutlass, another sword similar in size, I'm not sure what it's called, and a broadsword. I have my fencing swords too, but they aren't very cool.
-
...
A lamp is an improvised weapon at most.
...
Tell that to the judge and see what happens.
A rifle is designed with weapon-like usage in mind, but few lamp manufacturers consider the power of the lamp to bludgeon in the R&D stage, and if they do they generally try to make it as poor a club as they can.
Is is so hard to believe that some guns are designed for target shooting? The Olympic style rifle posted was one. There are others.
I'm with anteater and that is why I said it, I don't plan on using my guns as weapons, that is why I don't call them weapons. Maybe defensive weapons, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm not going to use my guns in a criminal way. That is why the saying "Criminals carry weapons, sheepdogs carry firearms" exists. I'm sure you can figure out what is meant by sheepdog.
Quotefail, but I'll continue.
Why should a judge care whether what I used was an everyday object or a tool designed for the purpose if I attack someone with it?
As for the fact that some guns are designed for target shooting, the target varies. The gun is still designed to shoot stuff.
EDIT: You're a billion times worse at quoting than I thought.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
Dynamite was used to blow huge amount of rock off with a large explosion. People used said explosion to kill people, so that makes it a weapon?
A chainsaw is used to cut thing, suddenly someone uses it to kill someone, now its a weapon.
A tool is a tool, its how the tool is used that makes it a weapon. If your using the gun to shoot a human being, then sure your using it AS a weapon.
A weapon isn't a permanent state of being, its relative to how its being used in that point and time.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
-
I would think that the vast majority of ammunition has been used to hit targets, not bodies.
-
The site crashed, I didn't even know the post got through.
Why should a judge care whether what I used was an everyday object or a tool designed for the purpose if I attack someone with it?
They don't care. They will just call it a weapon, not an "improvised" weapon.
As for the fact that some guns are designed for target shooting, the target varies. The gun is still designed to shoot stuff.
And? Does the act of shooting something make a weapon a weapon? So knives aren't weapons? Flare guns are weapons?
-
The popes dick is still genitalia, even if he never actually uses it for its intended purpose of procreation.
Good point, however genitalia is an anatomical term. A lamp isn't genitalia, and can never be used as such. A lamp isn't a weapon, but it can be used as one. The same logic that applies to a lamp applies to a gun(or any other tangible item) in my opinion.
A lamp is an improvised weapon at most. A rifle is designed with weapon-like usage in mind, but few lamp manufacturers consider the power of the lamp to bludgeon in the R&D stage, and if they do they generally try to make it as poor a club as they can.
Hmm it works for me, try this:
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2v3lq2s.jpg)
Also an AK I used to own
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2eupz41.jpg)
Why so brown shiny plastic pistol grip?
Also, I'll post some of my knives at some point. They're a man's weapon.
IDK, ask the Bulgarians. Regardless I like the look of the cheep shiny commie plastic.
-
A tools use does not define it, it's intended purpose does. A chainsaw is designed to cut wood, not people, thus it is not a weapon, it only has the ability to become one. A gun is designed to kill or injure a person or animal, thus it is a weapon with the ability to become sporting equipment, etc. Much like a sword can be used in the martial arts; it is intended to be a weapon, people are trained to use it as a weapon, though most people do not end up using it to bring harm to others. It is still a weapon.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
You seriously believe that 99% of guns in existence are target rifles?
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
You seriously believe that 99% of guns in existence are target rifles?
You do know people who use guns to kill people have to train as well? Id fathom that theyd spend more ammo training at the range then they do in any firefight.
sooo
if every soldier spends at least 2/3 of his ammo in total in training add that to people who only shoot targets... You have the vast majority of people shooting targets...
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
You seriously believe that 99% of guns in existence are target rifles?
You do know people who use guns to kill people have to train as well? Id fathom that theyd spend more ammo training at the range then they do in any firefight.
sooo
if every soldier spends at least 2/3 of his ammo in total in training add that to people who only shoot targets... You have the vast majority of people shooting targets...
We aren't talking about proportion of use, actually read what you quote. Unless these soldiers train with guns entirely unlike those they would use in combat and the people who only shoot targets never use a combat-oriented gun, of course. If that's the case then certainly, you're right.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
You seriously believe that 99% of guns in existence are target rifles?
You do know people who use guns to kill people have to train as well? Id fathom that theyd spend more ammo training at the range then they do in any firefight.
sooo
if every soldier spends at least 2/3 of his ammo in total in training add that to people who only shoot targets... You have the vast majority of people shooting targets...
We aren't talking about proportion of use, actually read what you quote. Unless these soldiers train with guns entirely unlike those they would use in combat and the people who only shoot targets never use a combat-oriented gun, of course. If that's the case then certainly, you're right.
Your one to talk lol, the person you quoted said nothing about target rifles, he mentioned how your either shooting paper or inanimate targets, thats what my post was based off of. Why base my post off of your incorrect assumption?
-
Your one to talk lol, the person you quoted said nothing about target rifles, he mentioned how your either shooting paper or inanimate targets, thats what my post was based off of. Why base my post off of your incorrect assumption?
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
I have a canesword, bitches.
Want. Where did you get it?
When my grandmother died and we were sorting her stuff out there was an umbrella/walking stick stand and I was inspecting all the ornate sticks, and one happened to be a cane sword from India...
Your grandmother may have been a spy.
-
I have a canesword, bitches.
Want. Where did you get it?
When my grandmother died and we were sorting her stuff out there was an umbrella/walking stick stand and I was inspecting all the ornate sticks, and one happened to be a cane sword from India...
Your grandmother was definitely a spy.
Fix'd.
-
Your one to talk lol, the person you quoted said nothing about target rifles, he mentioned how your either shooting paper or inanimate targets, thats what my post was based off of. Why base my post off of your incorrect assumption?
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
I see no mention of him saying he uses "Target rifles" specifically
-
Your one to talk lol, the person you quoted said nothing about target rifles, he mentioned how your either shooting paper or inanimate targets, thats what my post was based off of. Why base my post off of your incorrect assumption?
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
I see no mention of him saying he uses "Target rifles" specifically
Of course, how silly of me to assume that rifles specifically designed to be fired at targets were anything like target rifles.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
You seriously believe that 99% of guns in existence are target rifles?
You do know people who use guns to kill people have to train as well? Id fathom that theyd spend more ammo training at the range then they do in any firefight.
sooo
if every soldier spends at least 2/3 of his ammo in total in training add that to people who only shoot targets... You have the vast majority of people shooting targets...
We aren't talking about proportion of use, actually read what you quote. Unless these soldiers train with guns entirely unlike those they would use in combat and the people who only shoot targets never use a combat-oriented gun, of course. If that's the case then certainly, you're right.
What I claimed is that their application 99% of the time is to strike a target with a piece of lead/copper/steel. This is the main use of guns in the world.
As for them being a weapon, that is highly unlikely, most guns will never be used in combat, and of the ones that do, they will rarely be used in any sort of actual combat.
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
You seriously believe that 99% of guns in existence are target rifles?
You do know people who use guns to kill people have to train as well? Id fathom that theyd spend more ammo training at the range then they do in any firefight.
sooo
if every soldier spends at least 2/3 of his ammo in total in training add that to people who only shoot targets... You have the vast majority of people shooting targets...
We aren't talking about proportion of use, actually read what you quote. Unless these soldiers train with guns entirely unlike those they would use in combat and the people who only shoot targets never use a combat-oriented gun, of course. If that's the case then certainly, you're right.
What I claimed is that their application 99% of the time is to strike a target with a piece of lead/copper/steel. This is the main use of guns in the world.
As for them being a weapon, that is highly unlikely, most guns will never be used in combat, and of the ones that do, they will rarely be used in any sort of actual combat.
You said that the application of 99% of guns is to shoot targets.
Most halberds go unused too, are they just an extremely complex and high-maintenance tool for chopping wood?
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
You seriously believe that 99% of guns in existence are target rifles?
You do know people who use guns to kill people have to train as well? Id fathom that theyd spend more ammo training at the range then they do in any firefight.
sooo
if every soldier spends at least 2/3 of his ammo in total in training add that to people who only shoot targets... You have the vast majority of people shooting targets...
We aren't talking about proportion of use, actually read what you quote. Unless these soldiers train with guns entirely unlike those they would use in combat and the people who only shoot targets never use a combat-oriented gun, of course. If that's the case then certainly, you're right.
What I claimed is that their application 99% of the time is to strike a target with a piece of lead/copper/steel. This is the main use of guns in the world.
As for them being a weapon, that is highly unlikely, most guns will never be used in combat, and of the ones that do, they will rarely be used in any sort of actual combat.
You said that the application of 99% of guns is to shoot targets.
Most halberds go unused too, are they just an extremely complex and high-maintenance tool for chopping wood?
No, they are decorations. Who the hell chops wood?
And yes, 99% of guns are used to shoot targets. I never said 99% of guns are target rifles. See the difference?
-
Guns are made to hurt/kill things.
Guns, in general, are made hold a cartridge and then apply a force to a specific region of that cartridge. Possibly with the ability to cycle secondary cartridges into the position of the first once the force is applied.
That is all.
And the application of such a device?
99% of the time? To propel a lead/copper/steel item across distances and into a target.
A soft fleshy living target.
No, 99% of the time it is used to strike paper or other inanimate targets.
You seriously believe that 99% of guns in existence are target rifles?
You do know people who use guns to kill people have to train as well? Id fathom that theyd spend more ammo training at the range then they do in any firefight.
sooo
if every soldier spends at least 2/3 of his ammo in total in training add that to people who only shoot targets... You have the vast majority of people shooting targets...
We aren't talking about proportion of use, actually read what you quote. Unless these soldiers train with guns entirely unlike those they would use in combat and the people who only shoot targets never use a combat-oriented gun, of course. If that's the case then certainly, you're right.
What I claimed is that their application 99% of the time is to strike a target with a piece of lead/copper/steel. This is the main use of guns in the world.
As for them being a weapon, that is highly unlikely, most guns will never be used in combat, and of the ones that do, they will rarely be used in any sort of actual combat.
You said that the application of 99% of guns is to shoot targets.
Most halberds go unused too, are they just an extremely complex and high-maintenance tool for chopping wood?
No, they are decorations. Who the hell chops wood?
And yes, 99% of guns are used to shoot targets. I never said 99% of guns are target rifles. See the difference?
You said 99% of guns are made to shoot targets. Such a device would either be a target rifle or grossly inadequate at its job.
-
99% of nukes are never used, they aren't weapons?
-
99% of nukes are never used, they aren't weapons?
Not really. They're just boxes sitting in silos for decades at a time.
A weapon is defined by its use.
-
99% of nukes are never used, they aren't weapons?
Not really. They're just boxes sitting in silos for decades at a time.
A weapon is defined by its use.
I disagree. An item is defined by it's intended use.
-
99% of nukes are never used, they aren't weapons?
Not really. They're just boxes sitting in silos for decades at a time.
A weapon is defined by its use.
I disagree. An item is defined by it's intended use.
So that pipe I have sitting over there on my cupboard is a paper weight? It was made and sold as a paper weight.
If they decided to intend to make guns to hold down paper would they no longer be guns?
Also, who says they intended for them to be used for anything other than target shooting? If they were sold in the united states they at most were sold for hunting, and more likely were made simply for target shooting.
-
That's just random meaningless nonsense. You and I both know that.
Guns were originally designed for hunting animals, killing people, injuring people, etc. Yes, there are guns designed specifically for target shooting, this argument was never about those guns, to me it was always about guns such as AK47s, etc.
At this point the argument is no longer about whether or not guns are weapons, it has become about what defines an item: use or purpose? That issue cannot be resolved through arguments because it is purely philosophical. Because of this I propose that this thread either ends or returns to a discussion about zombies.
-
99% of nukes are never used, they aren't weapons?
Not really. They're just boxes sitting in silos for decades at a time.
A weapon is defined by its use.
First time be and Raist ever agreed on anything, it should be documented :P.
That's just random meaningless nonsense. You and I both know that.
Guns were originally designed for hunting animals, killing people, injuring people, etc. Yes, there are guns designed specifically for target shooting, this argument was never about those guns, to me it was always about guns such as AK47s, etc.
At this point the argument is no longer about whether or not guns are weapons, it has become about what defines an item: use or purpose? That issue cannot be resolved through arguments because it is purely philosophical. Because of this I propose that this thread either ends or returns to a discussion about zombies.
So if i get an Ak-47, i own a weapon? No i own a gun. If i use the gun AS a weapon then there you go, its a weapon. Until I use it as such, it remains to be a firearm/gun. I do agree with this being a largely philosophical viewpoint and probably wont be resolved.
-
Guns were originally designed for hunting animals, killing people, injuring people, etc. Yes, there are guns designed specifically for target shooting, this argument was never about those guns, to me it was always about guns such as AK47s, etc.
Where do you draw the line between those other weapons and an "AK-47"? I would like your opinion on each of the following rifles.
1)
(http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg)
2)
(http://www.raacfirearms.com/images/p_saiga.jpg)
3)
(http://www.shootingillustrated.com/Guns/Semi-Auto%20Rifles/RugerMini14/MG_3114.jpg)
4)
(http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ar-15-match.jpg)
5)
(http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL605/2357344/21732159/358380058.jpg)
6)
(http://johnsonfirearms.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/446L.203183226.jpg)
7)
(http://www.gunpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/30rar_r-15.jpg)
-
That's just random meaningless nonsense. You and I both know that.
Guns were originally designed for hunting animals, killing people, injuring people, etc. Yes, there are guns designed specifically for target shooting, this argument was never about those guns, to me it was always about guns such as AK47s, etc.
At this point the argument is no longer about whether or not guns are weapons, it has become about what defines an item: use or purpose? That issue cannot be resolved through arguments because it is purely philosophical. Because of this I propose that this thread either ends or returns to a discussion about zombies.
Why? Simply because you know your argument is inconsistent? Knives were made purely for killing in the beginning. Does that mean that all knives are weapons including the ones in your kitchen? The intent with which you use an item makes it a weapon.
A hammer may have been invented with the intention of driving in nails, but that doesn't mean you won't be charged with brandishing a deadly weapon if you wave it at cops. Intent defines a weapon, that much I agree with, but it is the intent of the user and not that of the designer.
-
SO HOW BOUT THEM ZOMBIES
-
THEY BE DANGEROUS.
-
That's just random meaningless nonsense. You and I both know that.
Guns were originally designed for hunting animals, killing people, injuring people, etc. Yes, there are guns designed specifically for target shooting, this argument was never about those guns, to me it was always about guns such as AK47s, etc.
At this point the argument is no longer about whether or not guns are weapons, it has become about what defines an item: use or purpose? That issue cannot be resolved through arguments because it is purely philosophical. Because of this I propose that this thread either ends or returns to a discussion about zombies.
Intent defines a weapon, that much I agree with, but it is the intent of the user and not that of the designer.
Which comes back to, why would you buy a firearm? Unless it is one of those practice rifles that don't shoot deadly bullets, most likely you bought it to defend yourself. If you bought it with the intention of defending yourself with it, that means you bought it with the intention of shooting it at other individuals, which makes it a weapon. You can play the semantics card all you want and say, "Who says I didn't buy it because I like looking at it?" but unless you are trolling, you know that 95% of the time that answer is a load of crap.
Once again, this is like me saying, that because I don't intend to blow anybody up, I should be allowed to keep a stack of military grade explosives in my house. Or that I am just intending to play pipe-ball, and should be allowed to throw my pipe bomb around the park with my friends. The intention doesn't alter what it is. Something that was built to be a weapon is inherently a weapon and should be treated as such regardless of how you use it.
I love how nobody responded to Taters when he said:
A tools use does not define it, it's intended purpose does. A chainsaw is designed to cut wood, not people, thus it is not a weapon, it only has the ability to become one. A gun is designed to kill or injure a person or animal, thus it is a weapon with the ability to become sporting equipment, etc. Much like a sword can be used in the martial arts; it is intended to be a weapon, people are trained to use it as a weapon, though most people do not end up using it to bring harm to others. It is still a weapon.
-
Once again, this is like me saying, that because I don't intend to blow anybody up, I should be allowed to keep a stack of military grade explosives in my house. Or that I am just intending to play pipe-ball, and should be allowed to throw my pipe bomb around the park with my friends.
Assuming just because something isn't labeled a weapon that its allowed to be used by everyone? Never said dangerous tools can be had by all, but dangerous tool =/= weapon.
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
-
We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
-
We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
Actually, that's precisely what you said.
-
We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
That's pretty much what you said.
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so my arm is a weapon now? Awesome.
-
We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
Actually, that's precisely what you said.
I have already asked for proof of this. We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
That's pretty much what you said.
Yes.
-
We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
Actually, that's precisely what you said.
I have already asked for proof of this. We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
That's pretty much what you said.
Yes.
So you own guns but not weapons, and you think guns are weapons?
-
We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
Actually, that's precisely what you said.
I have already asked for proof of this. We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
That's pretty much what you said.
Yes.
So you own guns but not weapons, and you think guns are weapons?
It's already been explained. You are just to lazy to read the thread.
-
We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
Actually, that's precisely what you said.
I have already asked for proof of this. We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
That's pretty much what you said.
Yes.
So you own guns but not weapons, and you think guns are weapons?
It's already been explained. You are just to lazy to read the thread.
He's not lazy, you're dumb.
HOW BOUT THEM ZOMBIES?
-
We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
Actually, that's precisely what you said.
I have already asked for proof of this. We are not saying guns aren't weapons. We are saying some guns aren't weapons.
I don't own weapons. I own firearms. Get the two straight.
That's pretty much what you said.
Yes.
So you own guns but not weapons, and you think guns are weapons?
It's already been explained. You are just to lazy to read the thread.
I was here the whole time. Stop being retarded if you can. I hear zombies are dangerous.
-
I'm still waiting for the quote where I say no gun is a weapon.
-
no gun is a weapon.
-
Win.
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
-
What if zombies could swim?
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
I guess it also depends if we are talking about the slow shuffling zombies or fast zombies. This would be a difference between floating and actually swimming.
-
The fast zombies probably couldn't swim.
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
How do a lot of things happen for an unknown reason, oh wait its the unknown part that hits yah.
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
Magic. We already went over this.
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
This was discussed earlier, the "zombies" wouldn't be dead people, they would be people infected with a parasite or something that made them lose the use of certain brain function.
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
This was discussed earlier, the "zombies" wouldn't be dead people, they would be people infected with a parasite or something that made them lose the use of certain brain function.
Wouldn't that mean they could be killed in almost any way a normal person does? That seems to defeat the purpose of a zombie. Also if it is an infection, that means it can be cured.
-
This is why you don't use a .22 lr to fight zombies, http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/08/24/20100824germany-man-shot-in-head-unaware.html
-
This is why you don't use a .22 lr to fight zombies, http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/08/24/20100824germany-man-shot-in-head-unaware.html
We don't know how far away the shooter was
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
This was discussed earlier, the "zombies" wouldn't be dead people, they would be people infected with a parasite or something that made them lose the use of certain brain function.
Wouldn't that mean they could be killed in almost any way a normal person does? That seems to defeat the purpose of a zombie. Also if it is an infection, that means it can be cured.
The "shoot 'em in the head" idea hasn't been used all that much in more recent zombie movies. Not all infections are curable, especially past certain stages
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
This was discussed earlier, the "zombies" wouldn't be dead people, they would be people infected with a parasite or something that made them lose the use of certain brain function.
Wouldn't that mean they could be killed in almost any way a normal person does? That seems to defeat the purpose of a zombie. Also if it is an infection, that means it can be cured.
The "shoot 'em in the head" idea hasn't been used all that much in more recent zombie movies. Not all infections are curable, especially past certain stages
Maybe a cure to the virus/infection, but to have a cure reverse the effects the infection already had done to your body, not likely
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
This was discussed earlier, the "zombies" wouldn't be dead people, they would be people infected with a parasite or something that made them lose the use of certain brain function.
Wouldn't that mean they could be killed in almost any way a normal person does? That seems to defeat the purpose of a zombie. Also if it is an infection, that means it can be cured.
The "shoot 'em in the head" idea hasn't been used all that much in more recent zombie movies. Not all infections are curable, especially past certain stages
Maybe a cure to the virus/infection, but to have a cure reverse the effects the infection already had done to your body, not likely
Pshh. Dr. House could cure it.
-
When recognizable guns/cannons were developed by medieval gunsmiths, they weren't designed to punch holes in paper. They were designed to punch holes in walls or people. To claim that a firearm isn't a weapon is absurd. The clue is in the name, firearm.
so I deliberately misinterpreted a point to make an inane reply? Awesome.
fix'd
You italicized arm over italicizing the entire word, so I thought you were trying to make a specific point
What if zombies could swim?
By Swim do you mean actually swim, or like Land of the Dead just walk through the bottom of the ocean and doesnt afraid of anything?
How can a zombie walk if there is no oxygen flowing through its body?
This was discussed earlier, the "zombies" wouldn't be dead people, they would be people infected with a parasite or something that made them lose the use of certain brain function.
Wouldn't that mean they could be killed in almost any way a normal person does? That seems to defeat the purpose of a zombie. Also if it is an infection, that means it can be cured.
The "shoot 'em in the head" idea hasn't been used all that much in more recent zombie movies. Not all infections are curable, especially past certain stages
Maybe a cure to the virus/infection, but to have a cure reverse the effects the infection already had done to your body, not likely
Pshh. Dr. House could cure it.
(http://geeks-have-feelings-too.net/contents/images/house-gif.gif)
Sadly again, not likely :P
-
Dr. House could diagnose it.
-
This is why you don't use a .22 lr to fight zombies, http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/08/24/20100824germany-man-shot-in-head-unaware.html
You get that off The Firearms Blog?
-
This is why you don't use a .22 lr to fight zombies, http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/08/24/20100824germany-man-shot-in-head-unaware.html
You get that off The Firearms Blog?
It was on google news. I found it at work and just searched for it again and that site came up.
-
This is why you don't use a .22 lr to fight zombies, http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/08/24/20100824germany-man-shot-in-head-unaware.html
You get that off The Firearms Blog?
It was on google news. I found it at work and just searched for it again and that site came up.
It's a really good site.
-
This is why you don't use a .22 lr to fight zombies, http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/08/24/20100824germany-man-shot-in-head-unaware.html
You get that off The Firearms Blog?
It was on google news. I found it at work and just searched for it again and that site came up.
It's a really good site.
They said that it was most likely a stray bullet shot by someone in celebration. That means that someone shot it up into the air, and UA ended up making it hit him. Poor guy. :P
-
This is why you don't use a .22 lr to fight zombies, http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/08/24/20100824germany-man-shot-in-head-unaware.html
You get that off The Firearms Blog?
It was on google news. I found it at work and just searched for it again and that site came up.
It's a really good site.
They said that it was most likely a stray bullet shot by someone in celebration. That means that someone shot it up into the air, and UA ending making it hit him. Poor guy. :P
Luck was not on his side that day. Though I question how he didn't feel/notice it the following mourning.
-
There can't be much room for 'error' for a bullet to get lodged in someone's skull, but not fully penetrate it.
He could have been extremely overweight so the bullet was trapped between his rolls, and his skull.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
This is completely relevant since the zombies we are currently discussing are just humans w/o anything supernatural about them.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
And I thought I hadn't read enough of the thread.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
Deadly-
2.
aiming to kill or destroy; implacable: a deadly enemy.
dictionary.com
I think deadly is an appropriate word in this situation.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
lrn2read
The zombies we are discussing are not undead.
-
Sokarul got something right. I've never seen that happen until now.
-
Sokarul got something right. I've never seen that happen until now.
It wasn't so much a logical process as retaining a fact from a few pages ago, so I don't think it counts as a whole one.
-
True dat.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
lrn2read
The zombies we are discussing are not undead.
zombie
-noun
1.
(in voodoo)
a.
the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.
b.
the supernatural force itself.
2.
Informal .
a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless, or seemingly rote; automaton.
Unless you meant the former, I don't think the latter is going to pose that big a threat. Zombies are the walking dead, literally. What you are discussing are rabid humanoids.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
lrn2read
The zombies we are discussing are not undead.
zombie
-noun
1.
(in voodoo)
a.
the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.
b.
the supernatural force itself.
2.
Informal .
a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless, or seemingly rote; automaton.
Unless you meant the former, I don't think the latter is going to pose that big a threat. Zombies are the walking dead, literally. What you are discussing are rabid humanoids.
But not rabies. "Diseased human expressing the traits of zombies from films" is too long, so we are just saying "Zombies". Sometimes context matters more than definition.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
lrn2read
The zombies we are discussing are not undead.
zombie? ?
-noun
1.
(in voodoo)
a.
the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.
b.
the supernatural force itself.
2.
Informal .
a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless, or seemingly rote; automaton.
Unless you meant the former, I don't think the latter is going to pose that big a threat. Zombies are the walking dead, literally. What you are discussing are rabid humanoids.
But not rabies. "Diseased human expressing the traits of zombies from films" is too long, so we are just saying "Zombies". Sometimes context matters more than definition.
Maybe if he read the last 3 pages of the thread he would understand that, but oh wait, thats too difficult amirite?
him: *reads last 3 posts on the last page* I KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT, GRAAAAA
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
lrn2read
The zombies we are discussing are not undead.
Unless you meant the former, I don't think the latter is going to pose that big a threat. Zombies are the walking dead, literally. What you are discussing are rabid humanoids.
We are not talking about undead zombies, because they run on magic, they are not possible. They cannot produce energy like we can because they have no working digestive or circulatory system, and every energy cycle that isn't aerobic is useless for anything longer than 2 minutes. Therefore, your zombies cannot exist unless they only come back from the dead for 2 minutes.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
lrn2read
The zombies we are discussing are not undead.
Unless you meant the former, I don't think the latter is going to pose that big a threat. Zombies are the walking dead, literally. What you are discussing are rabid humanoids.
produce energy like we can
"We?" There's no "we" when it comes to producing energy. Can you produce energy? Because if you can, you've just discovered how to break physics. Gratz, and here's your nobel prize.
-
This thread is starting to veer terribly off topic, I really think it would be better if a mod locked/split it. Just saying is all...
Its still on topic, went from, How deadly is a .22 to a zombie, that is currently being discussed.
Protip: When shooting zombies, do not discuss how deadly the caliber is to them. they are already dead.
lrn2read
The zombies we are discussing are not undead.
Unless you meant the former, I don't think the latter is going to pose that big a threat. Zombies are the walking dead, literally. What you are discussing are rabid humanoids.
produce energy like we can
"We?" There's no "we" when it comes to producing energy. Can you produce energy? Because if you can, you've just discovered how to break physics. Gratz, and here's your nobel prize.
::) They wouldn't be able to convert, store, and use energy like we can. If you are going to be pedantic at least make a point.
-
Oh, debating is much more fun when you can switch topics whenever you like.
-
http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen_p4.html
Shiiiit.
-
Oh, debating is much more fun when you can derail threads whenever you like.
You are quite good at it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen_p4.html
Shiiiit.
#5 Was the disease/parasite based ones that we had been taking about. I think this could happen, but is unlikely. (Shit!)
#4 Those zombies won't take over the world merely because they can infect others. They are pretty much people in comas except they can move. Not gonna happen.
#3 Also disease based and actually could happen. Mad Cow's Disease mixed with another disease that can infect humans easily and you got a horde of zombies. This is my number one pick for most likely to happen.
#2 I rate this even less possible than number five since it would require each zombie to undergo a stem cell transplant and even then there is no infection. Granted, these may be more dangerous than number one's but they wouldn't last long after we knew they existed.
#1 Most ridiculous so far. Implying that nanobots are sentient is a very large stretch. I don't see how this was ranked #1
-
Oh, debating is much more fun when you can derail threads whenever you like.
You are quite good at it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen_p4.html
Shiiiit.
#5 Was the disease/parasite based ones that we had been taking about. I this this could happen, but is unlikely. (Shit!)
#4 Those zombies won't take over the world merely because they can infect others. They are pretty much people in comas except they can move. Not gonna happen.
#3 Also disease based and actually could happen. Mad Cow's Disease mixed with another disease that can infect humans easily and you got a horde of zombies. This is my number one pick for most likely to happen.
#2 I rate this even less possible than number five since it would require each zombie to undergo a stem cell transplant and even then there is no infection. Granted, these may be more dangerous than number one's but they wouldn't last long after we knew they existed.
#1 Most ridiculous so far. Implying that nanobots are sentient is a very large stretch. I don't see how this was ranked #1
Id have to agree with you and most of those points, especially about number 3 being the most plausible. I don't really think zombies in real life would be as literal as the walking dead, but the Rage virus seems like the closest possible thing.
The only thing i have to say about #2 being actual undead is I agree about the need for a transplant, while #2 in action is highly unlikely in the way it was portrayed, but the idea itself seems reasonable. Its something to think about
-
Oh, debating is much more fun when you can derail threads whenever you like.
You are quite good at it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen_p4.html
Shiiiit.
#5 Was the disease/parasite based ones that we had been taking about. I this this could happen, but is unlikely. (Shit!)
#4 Those zombies won't take over the world merely because they can infect others. They are pretty much people in comas except they can move. Not gonna happen.
#3 Also disease based and actually could happen. Mad Cow's Disease mixed with another disease that can infect humans easily and you got a horde of zombies. This is my number one pick for most likely to happen.
#2 I rate this even less possible than number five since it would require each zombie to undergo a stem cell transplant and even then there is no infection. Granted, these may be more dangerous than number one's but they wouldn't last long after we knew they existed.
#1 Most ridiculous so far. Implying that nanobots are sentient is a very large stretch. I don't see how this was ranked #1
Id have to agree with you and most of those points, especially about number 3 being the most plausible. I don't really think zombies in real life would be as literal as the walking dead, but the Rage virus seems like the closest possible thing.
The only thing i have to say about #2 being actual undead is I agree about the need for a transplant, while #2 in action is highly unlikely in the way it was portrayed, but the idea itself seems reasonable. Its something to think about
Aren't they incorrect in how stem cells work though? Stem Cells don't bring dead cells back to life, they replace them. It seems reasonably possible like you said, but they aren't REALLY undead.
Unless I'm incorrect in how they work...
-
Oh, debating is much more fun when you can derail threads whenever you like.
You are quite good at it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen_p4.html
Shiiiit.
#5 Was the disease/parasite based ones that we had been taking about. I this this could happen, but is unlikely. (Shit!)
#4 Those zombies won't take over the world merely because they can infect others. They are pretty much people in comas except they can move. Not gonna happen.
#3 Also disease based and actually could happen. Mad Cow's Disease mixed with another disease that can infect humans easily and you got a horde of zombies. This is my number one pick for most likely to happen.
#2 I rate this even less possible than number five since it would require each zombie to undergo a stem cell transplant and even then there is no infection. Granted, these may be more dangerous than number one's but they wouldn't last long after we knew they existed.
#1 Most ridiculous so far. Implying that nanobots are sentient is a very large stretch. I don't see how this was ranked #1
Id have to agree with you and most of those points, especially about number 3 being the most plausible. I don't really think zombies in real life would be as literal as the walking dead, but the Rage virus seems like the closest possible thing.
The only thing i have to say about #2 being actual undead is I agree about the need for a transplant, while #2 in action is highly unlikely in the way it was portrayed, but the idea itself seems reasonable. Its something to think about
Aren't they incorrect in how stem cells work though? Stem Cells don't bring dead cells back to life, they replace them. It seems reasonably possible like you said, but they aren't REALLY undead.
Unless I'm incorrect in how they work...
I'm actually not sure, i tried looking it up but i couldnt find a definitive answer. Re-reading it I noticed the same thing
"You know all that conversy out there about stem cell research? Well, the whole thing with stem cells is that they can basically be used to re-generate dead cells."
I'm not sure if he means literally regenerate a dead cell (which sounds incorrect), or to replace the dead cell with a stem cell and just identify it as the previous.
I like the idea but i dislike the way the article goes about explaining it. Just the idea that with just the stem a being can walk around and eat i find interesting if it could be applied elsewhere. Like a virus that seemingly kills the victim but preserves the stem and alas you get the hollywood zombie, although again not TECHNICALLY dead.
-
I still find it utterly hilarious how seriously you guys are discussing this. Where's the spirit of the zombie? Where's the magic?
-
Where's the magic?
You are dumb and you post dumb things.
-
I'm not dumb. I just like zombies. You obviously don't.
-
Too bad itll never look this cool....
(http://sendmorecops.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/worldwarzconceptart.jpg)
-
It will once WWZ is turned into a movie. Well, it hopefully will.
-
A friend of mine and I were discussing possible ways of making Nazi Zombies into a movie. We decided that it needs to be done.
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1278340/
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1278340/
If that's Dead Snow, you're clearly faster than I am.
-
It is clear.
-
why does my work block imdb?
-
I'll have to watch that. But I was referring to the bonus content in CoD:WaW
-
http://ww2.zombieinitiative.org/
-
About the gun thing.
-
don't think anyone posted this yet
http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html
-
don't think anyone posted this yet
http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html
I think someone did, but they all rely on the same magic-fuelled zombie all true zombologists have already discounted.
-
don't think anyone posted this yet
http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html
I think someone did, but they all rely on the same magic-fuelled zombie all true zombologists have already discounted.
It's number one reason brought up a good point though.
-
Those people have guns, but no training whatsoever in combat. I doubt they'd be confident hunting big game that hunts in hordes.
-
Those people have guns, but no training whatsoever in combat. I doubt they'd be confident hunting big game that hunts in hordes.
The idea of the whole thing is that the world is pretty damn good at closing off epidemics. Therefore there wouldn't be much in the way of hordes.
-
also I think number 6 was a good point. zombies that were people that were just rabid would not survive a mild winter. let alone the things people in the north get.
-
Uh... People have survived before civilized times in the winter. Rabid humans would probably be smart enough to put on clothes and huddle up in crowds in small shelters. Actual zombies, however, would freeze like popsicles, and thaw as mush.
-
Uh... People have survived before civilized times in the winter. Rabid humans would probably be smart enough to put on clothes and huddle up in crowds in small shelters. Actual zombies, however, would freeze like popsicles, and thaw as mush.
rabid people probably wouldn't get along. If you put to rabid dogs in a cage they will kill each other. also people were not that dumb back then. it takes a surprising amount of intelligence to use tools or clothes. I doubt they would have that much intelligence.
-
That may be true, but for the rabid people to really work like "fast zombies," they also need to be non-aggressive to each other. Zombies ripping into the first thing they see, i.e. their attacker, wouldn't really be that scary, or effective. Also, if the infection started in the winter, lots of them would be wearing winter clothes. And that's not taking in the factor that the virus might just give them a fever to compensate for their rapid heat loss.
-
That may be true, but for the rabid people to really work like "fast zombies," they also need to be non-aggressive to each other. Zombies ripping into the first thing they see, i.e. their attacker, wouldn't really be that scary, or effective. Also, if the infection started in the winter, lots of them would be wearing winter clothes. And that's not taking in the factor that the virus might just give them a fever to compensate for their rapid heat loss.
Oh yes, if you get a fever you magically survive winter. That is why poor sick homeless people do so well in the cold.
Your body can't produce that much heat for that long even with winter clothes on. Humans need shelter to survive northern winters.
-
Yes, I'm intimately familiar with the wonders of arctic winters, Raist. I fucking live here, remember? I'm just saying, there is some plausibility to rabies-induced zombies surviving one winter.
-
Yes, I'm intimately familiar with the wonders of arctic winters, Raist. I fucking live here, remember? I'm just saying, there is some plausibility to rabies-induced zombies surviving one winter.
how much winter camping have you done?
-
Hehe. None. People out here die doing shit like that. Then again, I'm not a zombie.
-
that is sort of the point. it takes quite a bunch of work with people that spend hundreds of dollars on supplies and even they sometimes die. even if you have a coat on that allows you to get to your car comfortably you are not going to survive outside for days. so even if the infected person had a jacket on at time of infection they would still be dead after 2-3 days absolute maximum of freezing weather.
-
Excepting, of course, the fact that zombies never sleep. It's a lot easier to keep warm if you stay active. You would, of course, need the proper gear, and constant streams of meals to make up for that lost energy. Something tells me actual zombies would cope much better in the real world, if only because they lose some of the weaknesses humans have.
-
Excepting, of course, the fact that zombies never sleep. It's a lot easier to keep warm if you stay active. You would, of course, need the proper gear, and constant streams of meals to make up for that lost energy. Something tells me actual zombies would cope much better in the real world, if only because they lose some of the weaknesses humans have.
The lack of sleep would cause the heart to stop repairing itself properly. The lack of blood flow would freeze the extremities. Throw into that the lack of survival instincts and the zombies would die quickly. Though my theory would be on them wandering into subways and such and standing around stupidly til summer. (ignoring the obvious food problems)
-
Excepting, of course, the fact that zombies never sleep. It's a lot easier to keep warm if you stay active. You would, of course, need the proper gear, and constant streams of meals to make up for that lost energy. Something tells me actual zombies would cope much better in the real world, if only because they lose some of the weaknesses humans have.
The lack of sleep would cause the heart to stop repairing itself properly. The lack of blood flow would freeze the extremities. Throw into that the lack of survival instincts and the zombies would die quickly. Though my theory would be on them wandering into subways and such and standing around stupidly til summer. (ignoring the obvious food problems)
Lack of blood flow means that the zombies can't be aerobic, which renders them useless for almost all activities.
-
Excepting, of course, the fact that zombies never sleep. It's a lot easier to keep warm if you stay active. You would, of course, need the proper gear, and constant streams of meals to make up for that lost energy. Something tells me actual zombies would cope much better in the real world, if only because they lose some of the weaknesses humans have.
The lack of sleep would cause the heart to stop repairing itself properly. The lack of blood flow would freeze the extremities. Throw into that the lack of survival instincts and the zombies would die quickly. Though my theory would be on them wandering into subways and such and standing around stupidly til summer. (ignoring the obvious food problems)
Lack of blood flow means that the zombies can't be aerobic, which renders them useless for almost all activities.
I meant limited blood flow. More like a diabetes patient or someone that has heart problems. Think shitty hydraulic system, not broken one.
-
the lack of survival instincts
wut. Survival instincts are pretty much all the zombie has.
-
the lack of survival instincts
wut. Survival instincts are pretty much all the zombie has.
Make that instincts for self preservation. They don't react to pain, and do not do anything to protect themselves from obvious harm.
-
And now we're back to actual zombies. I thought we were discussing rage virus sufferers.
-
And now we're back to actual zombies. I thought we were discussing rage virus sufferers.
not really. attacking anything around you is not really a survival instinct. actually it is quite the opposite. no wild animal goes goes into a insane attack mode when it sees prey.
-
And now we're back to actual zombies. I thought we were discussing rage virus sufferers.
not really. attacking anything around you is not really a survival instinct. actually it is quite the opposite. no wild animal goes goes into a insane attack mode when it sees prey.
If it has rabies or mad cow disease it does.
-
And now we're back to actual zombies. I thought we were discussing rage virus sufferers.
not really. attacking anything around you is not really a survival instinct. actually it is quite the opposite. no wild animal goes goes into a insane attack mode when it sees prey.
If it has rabies or mad cow disease it does.
And how long do they survive. my points is that those instincts are not helpful in the whole surviving thing.
-
And now we're back to actual zombies. I thought we were discussing rage virus sufferers.
not really. attacking anything around you is not really a survival instinct. actually it is quite the opposite. no wild animal goes goes into a insane attack mode when it sees prey.
If it has rabies or mad cow disease it does.
And how long do they survive. my points is that those instincts are not helpful in the whole surviving thing.
With mad cow disease, pretty much until you kill them.
-
And now we're back to actual zombies. I thought we were discussing rage virus sufferers.
not really. attacking anything around you is not really a survival instinct. actually it is quite the opposite. no wild animal goes goes into a insane attack mode when it sees prey.
If it has rabies or mad cow disease it does.
And how long do they survive. my points is that those instincts are not helpful in the whole surviving thing.
With mad cow disease, pretty much until you kill them.
that is also not exactly in wild conditions. they are being protected from predators and fed. how long would they survive in the wild?
-
Technically, we're talking about cows. How long would any cow survive in the wild? They're much too docile to be fit for survival in the wild, unless I'm terribly mistaken. There are reasons for why lone wolves can get into enclosures and maul several cows to death without getting so much as a scratch.
And either way, what makes you think that a rabid human, who is without a doubt more intelligent than a rabid dog, would react in the same way? And even then, it should be possible to scare rabid dogs away. Sure, it might take something like surrounding an enclosure with pyres, but I would speculate that it is possible.
-
Technically, we're talking about cows. How long would any cow survive in the wild? They're much too docile to be fit for survival in the wild, unless I'm terribly mistaken. There are reasons for why lone wolves can get into enclosures and maul several cows to death without getting so much as a scratch.
Incorrect. Cows can escape from ranches, and when they do, given enough time, they become wild just like any other animal. There are herds in Arizona that have been running around wild for years.
And I don't know what your talking about, maybe wolves killing sheep. (A baby cow, sure, but not an adult) The only things that take down cows here are mountain lions.
-
Really? There are reports of wolves killing cows here all the time, unless I'm terribly mistaken.
-
Really? There are reports of wolves killing cows here all the time, unless I'm terribly mistaken.
Weird. Perhaps the cows in the southwest are just tougher. What region are you in?
Do you not have wild herds running around either? We have wild burros and horses as well.
-
Really? There are reports of wolves killing cows here all the time, unless I'm terribly mistaken.
Good thing wolves only kill enough to feed themselves when they actually have to run those animals down.
Cows wouldn't have to outfight wolves, they would simply have to outrun slower less fit cows.
-
Really? There are reports of wolves killing cows here all the time, unless I'm terribly mistaken.
Weird. Perhaps the cows in the southwest are just tougher. What region are you in?
Do you not have wild herds running around either? We have wild burros and horses as well.
I'm from Sweden, man. There isn't enough space for cows to break free and become wild here. Either way, I may have been mistaken about the cow attacks as I can't seem to find any reports to back up my claims. Oh well.
-
Really? There are reports of wolves killing cows here all the time, unless I'm terribly mistaken.
Weird. Perhaps the cows in the southwest are just tougher. What region are you in?
Do you not have wild herds running around either? We have wild burritos and horses as well.
Really?! :D
-
Wild burritos sounds fucking delicious.
-
This thread messes with me. I've had two dreams about zombies. Neither were scary though, they were slow shawn of the dead style zombies. The bad part is every time my guns are locked in a combo safe, and I can either not get to them or they are simply lazer tag rifles. Odd huh.
-
This thread messes with me. I've had two dreams about zombies. Neither were scary though, they were slow shawn of the dead style zombies.
If only we were lucky enough to have these kind where we can groan and walk like them and suddenly were invisible
The bad part is every time my guns are locked in a combo safe, and I can either not get to them or they are simply lazer tag rifles. Odd huh.
I got a good chuckle out of this ;D
-
Really? There are reports of wolves killing cows here all the time, unless I'm terribly mistaken.
Weird. Perhaps the cows in the southwest are just tougher. What region are you in?
Do you not have wild herds running around either? We have wild burritos and horses as well.
Really?! :D
Apparently.
-
Bump.
-
If a thread was already bumped and immediately fell into silence again, without a single response, that's a good indicator that the discussion has ended. Also, these people aren't even talking about zombies any more.
-
I bumped it due to the recent release of Dead Rising 2. Anyone else played it yet?
-
After the massive heap of fail that was Dead Rising, I have not, and probably will not. I'll be getting a whole lot less free time than I've had the past few months once my course starts.
-
It's pretty fun. I have some complaints, but overall it is good. 6/10.
-
This thread really should have been locked a while ago.
-
Dead rising was quality. Still cant play it on my own though. Its the noises they make.
-
Seriously? Dead Rising was the least scary game featuring zombies I've played, excepting Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse. You could punch out a zombie with a gigantic teddy for crying out loud!
-
I threw a beach ball at one and it bounced and hit others too. It was funny. I also slapped one with a handbag until the hand bag broke, then beat it to death with the "massager" that came out.
-
I've been very productive lately, over five-hundred kills, with a phosphorus-based zombie bait. The things make a very nice blue light when being consumed in the flames, no doubt from the copper bracelets they're wearing because of zombie related arthritis. Has anyone else had luck with this?
-
I've been very productive lately, over five-hundred kills, with a phosphorus-based zombie bait. The things make a very nice blue light when being consumed in the flames, no doubt from the copper bracelets they're wearing because of zombie related arthritis. Has anyone else had luck with this?
Undead Nightmare? It's truly awesome.
-
Aha. A fellow traveler. Grrrrrrr.