HOME | DD
Chess-Man β Zombie Moroncalypse
Published: 2014-06-17 20:13:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 2250; Favourites: 31; Downloads: 11
Redirect to original
Description
I don't know, the thought of rotting relatives and a pandemic of flesh and mind altering virus doesn't sound too pleasant to me.And for everyone who said "You're armed for zombie apocalypse" on my weapon pictures, I enlighten you - I'm waiting for the monsters to show up. I can deal with a bit of zombies, but not the whole freaking world of them. Cuts down on variety.
Related content
Comments: 20
Maybe your weird? There's a joke there somewhere. LOL
π: 0 β©: 0
Seriously I don't think anyone would want a zombie appocalypse, except maybe a supervillain.
I can just see it for me.
Mister evil sitting in his lair, in his underwater city at the bottom of the sea.
with him in his city is 5000 men and 5000 woman, who he have carefully selected to be genetically perfect, and these are all completly loyal to him.
Whit his fully autonomous undersea city he relases the zombies on the surfaces, ensuring that all humans up there die. Once there is no more humansΒ the zombies die too, because they can only reproduce by taking over living humans.
After the waiting period is over the surface is bare and ready to be colonised with him as the supreme and unquestioned ruler.
And for totally unrelated reasons, you can't spare me 500 billion dollars to help me get started on building an underwater city?
π: 0 β©: 1
And here I thought that was a disturbingly well thought up plan... O.o I'm onto you!
π: 0 β©: 1
except for the founding yes.
But you see the best way to make zombies is with nano robots. My nano zombie robots can rebuild copies of themselves and follows a prime directive. I wont go into detail for security reasons, but I have put many failsafes on them, to ensure they wont go rogue.
We don't want to destroy nature or the infrastructure, only these pesky humans.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah... being prepared for the possibility is at least of debatable usefulness, but actually WANTING that to happen is just idiocy.
π: 0 β©: 0
The Zombie Apocalypse would end before it began. You have a small outbreak and everyone would be like "ZOMBIES!!!" and everyone would take off work/school/whatever to go there and shoot some Zombies. And poof... crisis averted and everyone goes home disappointed. lol
π: 0 β©: 1
Unless it happened in a place without guns... that'd dramatically change how things play out.
And no, that's not justification for guns being everywhere.
π: 0 β©: 1
It would still suck to be those people. Glad I live in 'Merica.
π: 0 β©: 1
And I'm honestly glad I don't, given that the likelihood of zombie attack is substantially lower than that of some random asshole pointing an AK at you because you messed up his fast food order, or argued with him at a basketball game, or because you were teaching your daughter to ride a bike, or because you didn't have a fresh pastry to offer them, or because they didn't want to pay tax on a bottle of cola, or because they saw you at their front door and assumed thief when your car had broken down and you needed help.
And yes, these are all things that have actually happened in America, and those are just the ones I know of as a foreigner, now compare that to all the zombie virus outbreaks that haven't been happening...
π: 0 β©: 1
It's fine if you want to be disarmed in your country. So long as nobody tries to disarm people my country, I'm fine with whatever anyone else wants to do in theirs.
And I care not about fictional Zombie attacks. I care about the burglar or drug-addict that can break down your door at 2 AM, or wild animal that might be threatening your kids and pets in your yard (happens in rural areas) and most importantly, a government that decides it wants to take too much power and won't give it back (Europe outta know something about that kind of thing) in which case an armed citizenry is a major deterrent.
So yes, if you want to be defenseless, be my guest. But in my case, I'd rather risk a few bad people getting guns more easily, than having all the good people have no guns at all (and most of the bad guys would still have guns).
Nice talking to ya, bro! *Salutes*
π: 0 β©: 1
Except that historically, the bad people with guns seem to be far more likely to use them.
Australia and Canada manage to get by without an armed populace, hell, Britain somehow manages to get by without their police force having guns most of the time, so it's not really backed up by reality that an armed populace helps prevent a tyrannical government.
Also, if that burglar or drug addict also has a gun, then you're just (at best)Β presenting a solution to the problem created by the gun itself, and again, somehow other countries manage to get by without that type of solution.
And no, the bad people find it a great deal harder to obtain and use guns if there are sensible gun control laws, again going by the example of other countries, if criminals get their guns taken off them, then they can't use them, it's that simple, the most you tend to hear about criminals with guns in Australia is them being seized by the police before they can be used. Are there still going to be criminals who can get their hands on guns? Absolutely, just like there's always going to be people who can smuggle in meth, doesn't mean you just legalise it and let it run rampant.
π: 0 β©: 1
If we both have guns, I would be on equal footing with most any person who broke into my house. If it is knives, baseball bats or bare fists? I'm dead (or left severely injured more likely), because I'm neither physically strong or have HtH combat training. And you can't rely on cops being there in time, especially in the rural areas. So unless you want a bazillion cops everywhere, or everyone to have mandatory HtH combat training, you put any criminal at an automatic advantage, especially if the victim is vulnerable (like an elderly citizen).
Every dictator always seeks to disarm his populace; it simply makes things easier for them. Just ask yourself, in your country and in others, what is there to stop your government from turning tyrannical? Elections mean nothing if they can't be enforced by somebody. And if the government is the only one who can enforce them... well it is up to their benevolence whether said election is fair or not (if it even occurs at all).
One other thing is that you are also proposing to punish law-abiding citizens who may only own guns for the purpose of hunting, sporting or collecting. You're taking away traditions and possibly family heirlooms. So, you take away the guns from all law-abiding citizens and some/most criminals. Basically the criminals come out ahead in the end, since they don't even need a gun now. Just break into granny's with a golf club and you have nothing to worry about.
So it really is personal preference I guess. I'd feel more safe at night owning, or having a family member own, a gun that is in the house and ready to be used in an emergency. I guess that's the beauty of sovereign nations; it gives people choices in what kind of laws they'd like to live under.
Anyway, good debate, but I get into these arguments too often so I'm gunna cut myself off now. It's a borderline addiction for me to get into political discussions. lol
π: 0 β©: 1
Except that you need training to use firearms as well, you need to aim, you need to manage recoil, you need to keep your nerve so you're not firing blindly, emptying the whole mag or shooting at what turns out to be a family member. In addition, there are non-lethal means of subduing an intruder that don't rely on physical strength, tasers or pepper spray come to mind, finally, most intruders won't risk a confrontation if they don't have the firm advantage of a gun in their hand, they don't know if a bodybuilder with a baseball bat is in the next room, just ready to be woken up or otherwise alerted, so their natural course of action is to flee if discovered, now this won't be the case in every scenario, and waiting for the cops can be tricky sometimes, butΒ you're still relying on a very specific worst case scenario to justify your position.
Except that hasn't happened in Australia, Britain or Canada. It doesn't matter if the populace is armed, a government can still turn into a dictatorship, just look at Syria, also look at Syria to see the results of trying to fight a government, a long protracted civil war that attracts extremist elements and gets bloody on both sides, not to mention that if the American government seriously wants to oppress you, do you really think untrained civilians with handguns and single-shot rifles are going to be able to stand up to the most advanced military on the planet? Wielding fully-automatic assault rifles, high-power sniper rifles, body-armour, and extensive training? Hell, even just SWAT with their bulletproof shields and tear gas.Β You'd just get yourselves slaughtered. Places where dictatorships spring up tend to be less about the armaments of the general public, and more about a political system that's already unstable or corrupt, America isn't suddenly going to morph into that kind of place because the guns went away.
I have very little sympathy for people who hunt recreationally, that's just killing to get your rocks off, special permits and allowances can be made for people who need to control pest animals or hunt for money/food, I just don't think people in the suburbs need firearms. And as we've already discussed, better that Granny have her possessions stolen than get shot dead because she got caught in a shootout, assuming she doesn't have any number of age-related conditions that would prevent her from using a gun effectively, there's no guarantee that she'd survive an encounter with a gun-wielding intruder, sometimes it's better to survive than take a stand over the family silver.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, as much as I could continue the discussion, I'll let you keep the last word and call it good. Obviously we disagree pretty strongly and I doubt either of us will change each-other's mind. Have a good one!
π: 0 β©: 0
Well the only way a planetary-wide zombie apocalypse would happen is if the zombie-making agent is either a virus engineered to zombify at a specific time or nanotechnology/magic. Other methods would more likely create pockets of zombies.
π: 0 β©: 1
Listen to this scenario.
The zombie parasite infects humans, but humans aren't turned right away, in fact in its most primitive form, it takes weeks before they start to lose their mind. It start by increasing their sex drive making them want to kiss and have sex with strangers.
It would start as a biological attrack in all the major world hubs, by the time when the first infected reach stage three where they start to get dangerous and zombielike, half the human population will already have been infected.
But we really don't need something like zombies to create massive death. Imagine if it were not only possible but that someone had actually done what Bernadette jokes about one time in the Big Bang Theory, to cross ebola with the common cold.
An ebola-cold virus, that is a virus that spreads like the common cold and kills like ebola, would be absolutely devastating on the human population. Literally billions of people are infected by the common cold each year.
Humanity would not be extinguished by this supervirus, some would develop a resistance, but if two thirds of all humans die in the pandemic life as we know it would be changed forever.
It would be a complete breakdown of infrastructure dead would be lying in the streets by the thousands, and the survivors would properly be so terrified of getting infected that these not affraid of death would be allowed to do almost anything.
Great nations like America, Russia and especially the highly populated and already polluted China and India would collapse, and many smaller states like Germany and France would follow.
when the plague would finally be over thousands of petty kingdoms would dot the globe with little or no contact to each other, each being self sufficient and agricultural.
And unlike a zombie apocalypse guns wont actually help you one bit.
π: 0 β©: 0
People also don't know how they're going to react when facing a life-or-death situation. "I'll just gun them done" No, it's not that simple.
π: 0 β©: 0
i need to show this to my friend, because i think he wants the zombie apocalypse to happen
π: 0 β©: 0