Rouges, Bandits, and Drunkards With Guns

[nicklefish]

I think these factors are overlooked entirely too much. Yes, the zombies are a huge, unnerving threat, but what about the human end of the post-appocolipse hostile spectrum? I think there needs to be at least a few anti-human weapons in your arsneal. Almost all of your anti-zombie gear will be effective, but things like pepper spray, or tazers would be as valuble. I've begun mixing my own "Firefly" (recipe compliments 369th Urban Defense Command [ www.freewebs.com/369udc/armory.htm ]) and looking for other ways to incapacitate living attackers. What have you guys put together?

[jamoni]

EDIT:
-Official Zombie Squad policy states that only in cases of self-defense is the use of force against regular humans considered an option.-

[ProZombieHunter]

Anyone who's not on the side of humanity (Anyone attacking humans instead of focusing on the undead threat) needs to be made a simple offering of proper education of the circumstances.

And I mean a warning shot.

Failing that, I think it might actually be easier to bust up on living humans than zombies, despite their (vastly) superior intelligence. Nonlethal means could be useful, but hey... They started it.

[jamoni]

Warning shots are a bad idea. You fire a "warning" at me, I'm just going to assume you missed and are reloading. No one needs to be warned not to be an evil prick.
EDIT:
-Official Zombie Squad policy states that only in cases of self-defense is the use of force against regular humans considered an option.-

[Jeff]

I'll be the one throwing big rocks while Jamoni fires his fancy firearms.

[nicklefish]

What do you do if you startle someone who is a decent person, and could aid you in your ventures, such as a doctor, or a chemist, and they think YOU'RE the bad guy? I'd at least try to get their story before I used leathal force. Then again, that could get me killed, so what do I know?

[*Mike*]

I was going to post the same thing, thats why I want some M60s or M249 SAWs.

[ProZombieHunter]

I'm all for hating the proponents of sipping cappucino and being a deuschbag yuppie, Jamoni, but I think Nickle has a decent point.

So maybe no warning shot. Good point. More likely a gun pressed to the temple. A big gun.

[Sam]

If someone is usefull then they arent going to be a dick. I would rather have someone with no skills who can carry shit than a trained doctor who steals food and argues.

[Geist]

I like Nickle's idea, pepper spray will really mess someone up and make them think about something else aside from hurting you. The down side is that you have to get really close to spray someone. Maybe some rocksalt in a shotgun would make a better impression.

--Geist

[ProZombieHunter]

Shoot a flaregun at them.

Or threaten to run them over.

Sneak up and take a hostage.

No matter what, the option to kill is always readily there, but the more peaceable option is always available.

[jamoni]

See, I won't startle anybody, and they won't startle me, because my ass is sneaky. Every time you alert a person to your presence, you play a game of russian roullette. So you'd better know about them before you do it. You follow them. You watch them. You listen. When you've found out what you need, you make a decision.
EDIT:
-Official Zombie Squad policy states that only in cases of self-defense is the use of force against regular humans considered an option.-

[Joe Ghoul]

I think its a universal fact that the scum will come out during a zombie outbreak.

As far as worrying about less-lethal weapons during an outbreak, I'll pass. I don't plan on letting a potentially hostile person within mace range.

I don't advocate shooting any unknowns during an outbreak. After all, isn't ZS ultimatly there to assist the helpless during a zombie outbreak?

However, if I don't know you, you're a potential threat. If you need to approach me, do it with your hands in the air. I think that's reasonable for a situation where all law and order has broken down.

As far as dealing with what I'll just call 'raiders'? You would treat them just like you would the undead. Hide when necessary, strike when the odds are in your favor. Just don't make the mistake that every armed band you see are raiders. They may be just honest citizens out for survival like you.
However, by the same token, you would have to approach innocent seeming strangers with great caution. That little screaming girl may just be bait to lure in you. The ZS and the rest of us will be better armed, supplied, and outfitted than the rest of the population. The will be those who will be willing to do violence to gain our resources.

If its a class 2 or 3 outbreak, try and help out your fellow man if possible. Even if its just giving directions to food or safety. Just make sure you treat your safety as paramount. Trust noone fully that's not a teammember.

A class 4 outbreak? I'd resist all contact. Like the earlier post said, even someone with valuable skills, like a doctor, could be a hinderance to survival.

[Red Panda]

Joe's post brought up a good point I didn't think of, before.

As a member of ZS, is it your mandate to rescue as many people as you can?

I've always been thinking of surviving something like this, starting with bugging out. I dunno if I could stick around a dangerous area, looking to help out. I have a couple of friends who are considering the police force, cuz of the training & access to firearms. I think they'll be the first line of defense against an outbreak. Probably leading to them being some of the first infected.

Noble intentions, but I think ZS should try to save themselves first, then mop up & start re-education afterwards. After all, who else is in the position of actually having been prepared for this?

[kyle]

As a member of ZS, is it your mandate to rescue as many people as you can?

It's our mandate to kill off as many zombies as we can. If we save a few people in the process then that's just a few extra points. With the um...lack of zombie outbreaks lately, our focus is educating the public and sharing zombie survival information.

Noble intentions, but I think ZS should try to save themselves first, then mop up & start re-education afterwards. After all, who else is in the position of actually having been prepared for this?

In a large outbreak the priority #1 for ZS is to get out alive, regroup and survive. Being a hero might be cool and all but how am I supposed to enjoy a cold one (or maybe room temperture one) if I'm dead? We're not crazy.

[ghostface]

I'd like to get a little historical/factual perspective on the "raider" scenario. Are there any semi-recent cases that we can study? I'm trying to think of something in America, but all I can come up with is mass rioting w/only very small groups working together.

Do we have to turn to somewhere else in the world, like Somalia? I don't know if that would provide an accurate model for us to study, given the cultural/religious/political/economic differences. I'm guessing during the American civil war there would be examples, and of course the rogue "ear-trophy hunters" stereotype in 'Nam comes to mind.

But are there any similar cases we can really look at in order to prepare ourselves? Perhaps a semi-affulent country that goes through a sudden economic collapse? <- Usually there are groups who claim to be rebels/revolutionaries who are in many ways similar to raiders, but they ostensibly have political agendas (i.e. they often kidnap in exchange for imprisoned members) whereas raiders presumably would not. Any thoughts?

[Red Panda]

That's cool.

I was just worried that you'd try to be all noble, then get nabbed. All of a sudden, everyone else is screwed.

Plus, I'd feel guilty for not sticking around & doing my part, too.

[jamoni]

Consider the Japanese warring states period.
Somalia would be an especially good example, for the way every block had it's own petty warlord. Also, gang violence in any city. The big thing to remember is that people are herd/pack animals, tribal. And they WILL get together with like-minded people. So who is likely to survive in a Zombacalypse? The well prepared, well organized groups like ZS, and the hardcore ruthless SOBs who band together into little war groups. These are not going to be ethics professors and ice cream men, they will be the bad dudes who would be in prison otherwise. People who are crafty but not wise, violent but tricky, the worst of the worst. Cockroach/twinkie/rat people.
EDIT:
-Official Zombie Squad policy states that only in cases of self-defense is the use of force against regular humans considered an option.-

[ghostface]

I don't know about that whole cockroach/rat idea. I mean not looking at me, but the people I know... I look around at my old college friends and they are all pretty much:

At least high school varsity level athletes.
Above average to very bright intelligence (by academic standards, a debateable source, I know).
Able to drive a wide range of vehicles under extremely adverse conditions, be it meteorological or other high stress.
At least basic experience with shotguns.
Not morally against doing whatever it takes to stay alive.

Assuming 9/10 people die, I understand that not all of them would survive. But I mark their chances a lot higher than most, especially now that I'll be feeding them helpful info from here .

Granted there are some things that your average cockroach/rat (assuming the Hollywood stereotype) would have going for them:

A lack of caring what happens to anyone else.
A lack of imagination as to long term consequences (i.e. focused on short term/immediate survival).
And thus little hesitation (shoot first)
Possibly a better short-term physical condition (i.e. they might be able to beat some ass, but are looking at a nice bout of lung cancer down the road).
Possibly more knowledge of weapons and/or combat
More experience with adverse conditions/lifestyles
The natural intimidation that would carry over from the pre-PAW

What they might have going against them:
Possibly worse overall physical condition (poor nutrition, drug use, lack of quality medical care).
Dependency on preexisting methods of survival/action (show lack of adaptability/growth).
Lack of "sharing" for the common good. <possibly balanced by a "take what I need by force" attitude.

It’s just so hard to say b/c SO much of this is based on fiction/movies/TV. That’s why real examples would be so helpful.

Also: Not to get into the whole M16 vs. AK thing, but (according to first hand accounts from the book Black Hawk Down) in Somalia the Rangers complained that they could shoot the “skinnies” several times to no effect (many were hopped up on khat) b/c their M-16 rounds ripped right through them, allowing them to get off shots while suffering from possibly fatal wounds, while the Somalis and the Deltas enjoyed a much higher instance of dropping the target on a single hit, preventing so called reflex shots. And no, I have no experience either way first hand so don't... um... bite my head off .

[crickets chirping]

What do you guys think.

[Sam]

I think that people are fundamentally selfish and irrational. Get them panicked (absolutely everyone will panic) and they are going to be a real problem. Your college friends sound like balanced individuals but they hardly account for most people. Consider my chauvinistic idea of most females: Inept, irrational, and generally a drag. I'm a bastard, but thats the kind of person you can end up encountering. They arent above fucking you over the moment they can (hell, I doubt I'm that saintly) and they certainly arent above being annoying.

[ProZombieHunter]

A valid point made for the AK, Ghostface, but is it really relevant?

Zombies don't carry guns -- "Reflex shots" are therefore an unnecessary issue to be raised in the forums.

In my opinion, the application of an AK-47 in a gunfight beats the M-16 hands-down (And yes, I've shot both). But against zombies, a brain-destroying headshot is the point. Therefore, the guns are equally balanced...

...Of course, when applying heavy fire, the AK tends to walk high pretty fast. The M-16 has a much softer kick.

BUT ANYWAYS...

[jamoni]

Ghostface, some DAMN good points, but you forgot one:
Scumbags are easily led by a stronger scumbag. They tend to gather in packs, and while a single scumbag isn't much of a threat, a bunch of scumbags commanded by one uber-scumbag could be serious bad mojo.
EDIT:
-Official Zombie Squad policy states that only in cases of self-defense is the use of force against regular humans considered an option.-

[ghostface]

ProZombieHunter

The point about the stopping power issue is that most (and I'm sure someone can post a link back if I'm wrong, which I might be) posts debating the merits of various guns'n'ammo were dealing largely with zombie-killing as a consideration. I was mentioning the whole Somalia thing as something to consider vs. human raiders, which I think might be viable. If your weapon of choice is preoccupied with stopping the living dead, it might not carry the necessary burden to handle human raiders. Point in case: A classic study of the human brain revolves around a young irishman who had a railroad spike (via a TNT accident) driven through his brain separating the left and right hemispheres causing him to act irrationally, but otherwise leaving him more or less intact, and certainly capable of pulling a trigger. Any web search will probably pull up x-rays of humans with long sharp objects passing through or embedded in their skulls who not only survived but continued to function. We're assuming, largely via popular media, that anything that can get in the skull can do the job on rots. That was what I was getting at. A lot of weapons that are getting dismissed could have their place in the longer, anti-personnel role. It’s all well and good to headshot a zom at 200 yards, but months later, it might not be a shambler that you’re gunning for.

Jamoni
Let's hope so. Someone on the scope could then turn a rag tag army into a seething mass of chaotic humanity. People who rely on charismatic zealots usually don't stand up to well to said zealot getting his/her brains painted on the concrete by a well placed sniper round. Camo/profile negation may not work on rots, but it'll still keep someone undetected long enough to put a bullet through Toughguy McBadass's skull piece. And hopefully, they'll be stupid/insecure enough to have identifiable rank markings, be it ink, medals, "trophies", jewelry, what have you.

But still we’re all talking out of our asses w/o some kind of historical/factual basis [and NOT movies]. Even gang warfare is about something socio-political, be it turf, drug rights, political control/immunity. There has to be some case where everything went to shit and raiders rose up. Right? I dunno, maybe I watched the Road Warrior too many times.

[jamoni]

From my view of the ghetto (closer than I'd like, at times) gang warfare is about group survival. The cops have given up, and so the only organization that's gonna save your ass is a gang, which you need, because if you aren't IN the gang, you're prey. It's not about anything political, it's about the only thing that matters in the real world: RESOURCES. Drug trade is a resource, turf is a resource, prostitutes and influence with the cops, all resources. That's all anyone fights over, really.
EDIT:
-Official Zombie Squad policy states that only in cases of self-defense is the use of force against regular humans considered an option.-