Sign in or 
Location: Zombie Survival & Defense Wiki
Discussion: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
krackingskulls17 |
no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 5 2012, 6:00 PM EST
listen, first of all in a zombie apocalypse i don't think you would have enough time to even make your own ammo, zombies hear the noise first thing in their head is the words food. be smart and think about it, would you really have enough time to make your own ammunition if your house is swarmed by zombies. Another thing, if you can't fight close up in a zombie apocalypse you are not gonna even live long enough to see the next sunrise, look it is simple you need to know how to do close up combat, if not you are just gonna be killed. My guns are always gonna be hand guns, even though they do not have well aim, i can still use them when i am being over run, and i could use them close up. S sniper has it's advantages, yeah sure it has it's sharp aim, and has a high velocity in it's shots, but what are you gonna do when the zombies find a way to sneak behind you. There is always the possibility of using it as a club or something, but i prefer my guns with no damage. I will admit that having a sniper is always good for zombie defense, it could be useful. With you alone not so much, but if you have a team then it might do some good. Honestly, in a zombie apocalypse you would have to know how to use your feet for any quick escape, there is no time for hot wiring car, even though you might be in track or cross country, you will run out of breath. Since zombies are dead i believe they don't have the need to stop for breath. But back to topic, it is always good to also carry something durable to use against zombies, but even though i might also use a chainsaw, even though i may not live long enough, It is important to know how to survive in any situation of a zombie apocalypse. Give me a scenario and give me three objects to use, i will pick the best ones and tell you how to escape or at least live longer, will you accept my challenge?
2
out of
16 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
chitoryu12 |
1. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 5 2012, 9:12 PM EST
"Give me a scenario and give me three objects to use, i will pick the best ones and tell you how to escape or at least live longer, will you accept my challenge? "No, because you're not an expert on zombie hunting. You seem to not actually understand the concept of ammunition in terms of stockpiling it, reloading, noise, proper usage......really, a lot of things. 5 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
TreeLegs |
2. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 5 2012, 11:45 PM EST
Your response forces me to also disagree. While I do agree with the fact that h2h combat has its perks, it also has greater disadvantages. It puts you close to a contamination risk. It requires practice and skill much higher than basic marksmanship. If your weapon fails that close or you fail to land a fatal blow you're chow. Swinging a weapon fatigues you quicker than shooting. This among other things is why soloing melee should be a last resort. Firearms have distinct advantages over melee items. They allow you to place distance between you and the target increasing your chance for escape if neccisary. They take less time to learn to use effectivly. They allow you to dispatch targets quicker than you could with melee. They don't rely on space to create enough force to be effective. Everyone here is aware that ammo must be stockpiled, even if you make your own. It is not something to be done while Zeds are knocking on your door. What would you do if you had a baseball bat and you found yourself with both ends of the hallway had Zeds coming for you? You have no room to generate the force needed to kill quickly enough to escape. With a 10rd pistol, you can clear one side and escape. Don't understand the no damage gun concept. Unless you're a nerf or nothing kind of guy, you should be ok. Part of tactical shooting is being situationally aware. Shoot and move, unless you are shooting from a secured location(ie. rooftop or high window) In closing, it's easier to put yourself in more danger with a club than a firearm. Avoiding a fight entirely is the best option, if you can't do that, place distance between you and it, of you can't do that, you really messed up bad somewhere. P.S. If you are a lousy shot, practice more. You'll live longer in the end. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
chitoryu12 |
3. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 6 2012, 12:31 AM EST
Everyone here who plans on using guns as their primary weapon has already considered the ammo problem, probably far more than you have, and have stockpiled enough ammo to last them. Not to mention that we KNOW ammo is limited, which is why we choose to simply avoid combat whenever possible and pick our shots very carefully.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
White76Knight |
4. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 6 2012, 1:42 AM EST
"Don't understand the no damage gun concept. Unless you're a nerf or nothing kind of guy, you should be ok. "Given the whole of this statement, "There is always the possibility of using it as a club or something, but I prefer my guns with no damage." I think he means that he would prefer not to damage his guns by using them as improvised melee weapons. Aside from that, though, I am in complete agreement with everyone else who has posted on this thread, KS17. Please stop trying to present yourself as the be all and end all expert on all things related to combating zombies. You have only been a member of this site for about three days, and to put it bluntly, just about everyone on this site has put more time and thought into this than you have. Furthermore, based only on your own statements, I would also wager that just about everyone on this site has more real world knowledge, training and experience upon which to base their statements, whereas you just seem to be pulling your opinions out of your ass with no particular evidence to back them up. Please forgive me if I am wrong in this. If you really do have the sort of actual real world knowledge, training and experience that I am referring to then by all means, feel free to provide up with some sound arguments to back up the statements that you have made. Again, however, based only on what you have posted thus far, i do not believe this to be the case. And by the way, posting a new thread just to restate the same arguments that were made in another thread where nobody agreed with you, isn't going to change anyone's opinion. If they though you were wrong in the first thread, you will still be wrong in this one. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
chitoryu12 |
5. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 6 2012, 2:22 AM EST
I don't think he's got the real-world training for a zombie expert....
2
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
Zee-Man |
6. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 6 2012, 8:10 AM EST
Can Mods combine threads?Do you find this valuable? |
|
White76Knight |
7. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 6 2012, 12:33 PM EST
"I don't think he's got the real-world training for a zombie expert...."LOL - No probably not. I don't know his situation or anything, so I could be mistaken of course, but I think we can safely go out on a limb and say that he probably hasn't spent a lot of real world time battling the undead. Do you find this valuable? |
|
chitoryu12 |
8. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 6 2012, 12:40 PM EST
"Can Mods combine threads?I don't believe so. Normally duplicates and unnecessary threads just get locked and the person told to stick to one thread. Do you find this valuable? |
HeldUpInCostco |
9. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 6 2012, 2:14 PM EST
Please do not restate the same stupid points from the other thread. There is a reason we fight wars with guns as opposed to with baseball bats.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
Oakspar77777 |
10. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 7 2012, 7:55 PM EST
1) A mastery of the English language is evidence of the processes of rational thought, planning, and insight. An inability to do it swiftly and well show a lack of focus, intellegence, or practice. Of those, only the latter is excusable and only if English is your recent, second language.2) Reloading ammunition is a time consuming activity that cannot and would not be done under pressure. Instead, it offers a means for some to stockpile ammuntion at a lower price point. I have no plans for reloading, but I also have several tens of thousands of rounds in my home at the current moment. Thus, I have a bullet for every man, woman, and child in my country and three of the surrounding seven counties as well. 3) From a position of defence, sufficient ammo allows you to reduce the number of zombies in time to zero standing dead. While melee could help you streach that ammo, the difficulting in constructing a scenario in which that can be done as safely makes it unreasonable. 4) If you are running from anything something has gone wrong with your plan. You should be running to a goal and should have pleanty of alternate plans should Plan A fail. You cannot run forever, so if running is your only plan you will die the first time you get a cold, twisted foot, or the skitters. 5) The sniper does not have to watch his back. It can be a gunner with a massive scope and a sighter or a 14 year old on the roof with a .22 rifle and sharp eyes, no matter what, they should be either inaccessable or someone should have their back. Anyone approaching my farm wil have several rifles on them in short order and any zeds will be put down. To take out the watch, it would take either a shootout or they would have to come through the rest of the group in the house. 6) Handguns have their place, but for close quarters, shotguns are always better. For range, rifles. A handgun exist for "last chance" situation in survival settings. 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
TreeLegs |
11. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 7 2012, 8:12 PM EST
1) Well put and equally hilarious.2) Like the way you think. 3) Agree. 4) Again I agree, but look out for suprises. 5) Correct. That's why you have sniper teams. 6) Thank you for saying that lol! 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
KyanCross |
12. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 7 2012, 8:19 PM EST
"... zombies hear the noise first thing in their head is the words food. be smart and think about it...A gun's to noisy and not durable.... but a chainsaw is? 3 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
White76Knight |
13. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 7 2012, 11:46 PM EST
"I have no plans for reloading, but I also have several tens of thousands of rounds in my home at the current moment. Thus, I have a bullet for every man, woman, and child in my country and three of the surrounding seven counties as well. "Since I think we can safely assume that it wasn't all in one big lump sum purchase, just out of curiosity, how long did it take you to amass that kind of quantity of ammunition? Do you find this valuable? |
John_234 |
14. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 8 2012, 2:50 AM EST
"2) Reloading ammunition is a time consuming activity that cannot and would not be done under pressure. Instead, it offers a means for some to stockpile ammuntion at a lower price point. I have no plans for reloading, but I also have several tens of thousands of rounds in my home at the current moment. Thus, I have a bullet for every man, woman, and child in my country and three of the surrounding seven counties as well.I'd imagine reloading could be a calming process if you're bugging in, what with all those hours spent waiting and observing. I'd contend in *very* close quarters any sort of long arm becomes impractical. You can get disarmed easily and lack sufficient distance to react and fire accurately. Of course, a handgun has it's own issues, but it can at least be aimed and fired at such "contact distances." Do you find this valuable? |
Sharpie41 |
15. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 8 2012, 9:52 AM EST
"A gun's to noisy and not durable.... but a chainsaw is?"I wonder if he'll call guns "not durable" when he finds out about my dads 102 year old Winchester rifle, or about another Winchester that went through a barn fire, and then when he finds out about the chainsaw that crapped out after 5 years....... 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
White76Knight |
16. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 8 2012, 9:58 AM EST
"I'd contend in *very* close quarters any sort of long arm becomes impractical. You can get disarmed easily and lack sufficient distance to react and fire accurately. Of course, a handgun has it's own issues, but it can at least be aimed and fired at such "contact distances.""But the argument could be made that a shotgun lends itself to extreme SBR alterations more than a rifle, for instance a shotgun shortened even to a pistol length barrel might still perform better than a rifle with a pistol length barrel. But I only point that out to be contentious. LOL Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sharpie41 |
17. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 8 2012, 10:50 AM EST
"But the argument could be made that a shotgun lends itself to extreme SBR alterations more than a rifle, for instance a shotgun shortened even to a pistol length barrel might still perform better than a rifle with a pistol length barrel.I think it would too, the SBR loses velocity with the short barrel, enough to make it less lethal than a full length, while an SBS even though it would have less velocity too, it has 9+x the lead downrange as the SBR Do you find this valuable? |
|
White76Knight |
18. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 8 2012, 12:57 PM EST
"I think it would too, the SBR loses velocity with the short barrel, enough to make it less lethal than a full length, while an SBS even though it would have less velocity too, it has 9+x the lead downrange as the SBR "That too. Do you find this valuable? |
|
John_234 |
19. RE: no guns, unless you really need them: answering your opinions
Feb 8 2012, 2:03 PM EST
"But the argument could be made that a shotgun lends itself to extreme SBR alterations more than a rifle, for instance a shotgun shortened even to a pistol length barrel might still perform better than a rifle with a pistol length barrel.If you can handle the extreme recoil and muzzle blast, and trying to cycle that tiny gun and reload it. Personally, I like having more than three rounds in an *emergency weapon.* Then again, super short long arms of any kind generally suck. At that point, why not use a .454 Cassul? It'll be more manageable and accurate and legal, so you can actually practice with it. Do you find this valuable? |
