Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What sucks:

1) No Music
2) No Sleep
3) Lack of Food
4) Having MPD means my alter might say hello a little more often.
5) Lack of Smokes and Booze
6) I have a reason to use my Dad's Hunting Rifle

What is ok:
1) In some places peace and quiet.
2) Some people I'll never have to talk to again.

biccat wrote:

Sckitzo wrote:It also doesn't help that we've deemed narrow hips as "attractive" so we've been slowly breeding out the genetics in women to make child birth easier for the last hundred or so years.

Deeming something attractive doesn't mean that the genetics are changing. While we may find narrow hips attractive, what matters is whether these narrow-hipped women are procreating.

I would wager that throughout most of the world where population growth is occurring, narrow hips aren't high on the list of "potential mates" (China notwithstanding).

What I learned in one of my medical classes, more and more women are having trouble with child birth due to selective breeding.

And yes, America has tons and tons and tons of ammo sitting around, but it doesn't hurt to plan on it running out. Because you will run out, maybe you'll find more later, maybe not, but a backup plan helps.

Sckitzo wrote:

And yes, America has tons and tons and tons of ammo sitting around, but it doesn't hurt to plan on it running out. Because you will run out, maybe you'll find more later, maybe not, but a backup plan helps.

True, even with the massive amounts of ammunition available on American soil, the knowledge and ability of re-loading ones own ammo will be a huge plus....

FITZZ! Would a national park like Zion be a good place to escape to in case my genius plan to get to Antarctica fails?

coolyo294 wrote:FITZZ! Would a national park like Zion be a good place to escape to in case my genius plan to get to Antarctica fails?

While I'm not familiar with Zion National Park, I do believe that many National Parks would make good defensiable locations to hold up in.
Being that many parks are located a fair distance from major population centers, are not easy to access by foot ( mountian areas) , have many open field to provide clear kill zones as well as elevation for survaliance, tend to be set up for camping and often have genorators, living/staff/ guest qaurters, medical set ups and other stocked matierials ( food and supplies in some cases)...I would think that some National Parks would make ideal compounds...with a bit of fortification and preping ( perhaps some sweep and clear).

FITZZ wrote:

coolyo294 wrote:FITZZ! Would a national park like Zion be a good place to escape to in case my genius plan to get to Antarctica fails?

While I'm not familiar with Zion National Park, I do believe that many National Parks would make good defensiable locations to hold up in.
Being that many parks are located a fair distance from major population centers, are not easy to access by foot ( mountian areas) , have many open field to provide clear kill zones as well as elevation for survaliance, tend to be set up for camping and often have genorators, living/staff/ guest qaurters, medical set ups and other stocked matierials ( food and supplies in some cases)...I would think that some National Parks would make ideal compounds...with a bit of fortification and preping ( perhaps some sweep and clear).

This bodes well for me.

I'd personally look over the area, see what's there and where the nearest towns are, check the population of the towns and average population of the park itself...
Learn the lay of the land, access points...everything you can possiable learn about it...then ask yourself...is it viable?

If you have a group that could protect the area and keep it secure ( as secure as possiable) and still be able to aquire needed resources...then plan around it.

Pfft. I've played Honest Hearts. I know everything there is to know about Zion.

Well also to add to the discussion of Ammo. Like I mentioned earlier there is both an ammunition factory and a gun factory in my city, however they don't advertise their address. You cannot look them up, you cannot google map them. It is somewhat common knowledge to what part of town the factories are in. However, they conceal themselves from the public. You would have to go over the district they are in to find them, and the district they are in is very industrial and there are a lot of warehouses in the area.

So, yes, ammo will be available because there is a ton in the US, but that doesn't mean we can access it during a crisis. Plus, the owners of said companies will probably horde it the second things go wrong because they know how valuable it will be. Think about it, during an apocalypse type situation just imagine the value of ammo?

Actually, if the Survivalist is anyone to go by, one man and a gun can successfully defend themselves for a very, very long time in Zion.

Remember the biggest problem on ammo would be people who would hoard it and then get turned, so unless they didnt hide it very well or you get lucky that ammo may as well be considered lost.

coolyo294 wrote:Actually, if the Survivalist is anyone to go by, one man and a gun can successfully defend themselves for a very, very long time in Zion.

Yeah and when the Russians tried to invade Finland in WWII they got their asses handed to them because they got bottle necked alongside some mountains, and it was during the winter on Finland's home front. However, in this day and age, if the end of days happens, just think of everyone current in service will have access to when all the world governments fall. Sure, a trained person with a gun in a fortified position with enough ammo can defend them self, that I agree with you. Given an apocalypse situation I don't think that would be such a good idea. I think a mobile survivalist would have better chances than a guy held up somewhere. There very well be some ex military people well armed that will RPG your strong hold.

I am not saying this will happen, but I still think you need to always assume the worst in an apocalypse sort of situation. Zombies, not very smart, you can hold yourself up and pick them off. Granted you have the fortifications and ammo to do so, the living are much more cunning.

Crom wrote:Well also to add to the discussion of Ammo. Like I mentioned earlier there is both an ammunition factory and a gun factory in my city, however they don't advertise their address. You cannot look them up, you cannot google map them. It is somewhat common knowledge to what part of town the factories are in. However, they conceal themselves from the public. You would have to go over the district they are in to find them, and the district they are in is very industrial and there are a lot of warehouses in the area.

So, yes, ammo will be available because there is a ton in the US, but that doesn't mean we can access it during a crisis. Plus, the owners of said companies will probably horde it the second things go wrong because they know how valuable it will be. Think about it, during an apocalypse type situation just imagine the value of ammo?

I agree that private/military ammo manufaction facilities wouldn't be easy to locate ( and may be emptied if you did find them, though I doubt the military would bother with taking Civ. ammo stockpiles), and of course ammo along with food.water and "know how" will be the new "coin of the realm"...though I'd hope a single individule sitting on several million rounds would have enough foresight to understand that the distribution of those rounds benifits him more than simply hording them...but of course humans are human and could very well miss the larger picture in favor of " look at all the stuff I have that you need"...if you follow.

Now, as for "civilian" distributors ( Wal-Mart, Gun stores, etc), I speculate that many will be depleated, many won't...it would be hit and miss on supply searches...

Again, stockpiling ones own ammo cache prior to crisis ( I have 2,000 + rounds, various calibers ATM, and hope to double that by summers end) and knowing how to re-load ammo ( most people will be grabbing shells, not re-loading supplies in the initial panic) will help insure you have adequet ammunition.

Ammo won't be an issue. In fact, I can't really see how it would be a problem at all. I don't see military forces being beaten by zombies anytime soon.

FITZZ wrote:

Crom wrote:Well also to add to the discussion of Ammo. Like I mentioned earlier there is both an ammunition factory and a gun factory in my city, however they don't advertise their address. You cannot look them up, you cannot google map them. It is somewhat common knowledge to what part of town the factories are in. However, they conceal themselves from the public. You would have to go over the district they are in to find them, and the district they are in is very industrial and there are a lot of warehouses in the area.

So, yes, ammo will be available because there is a ton in the US, but that doesn't mean we can access it during a crisis. Plus, the owners of said companies will probably horde it the second things go wrong because they know how valuable it will be. Think about it, during an apocalypse type situation just imagine the value of ammo?

I agree that private/military ammo manufaction facilities wouldn't be easy to locate ( and may be emptied if you did find them, though I doubt the military would bother with taking Civ. ammo stockpiles), and of course ammo along with food.water and "know how" will be the new "coin of the realm"...though I'd hope a single individule sitting on several million rounds would have enough foresight to understand that the distribution of those rounds benifits him more than simply hording them...but of course humans are human and could very well miss the larger picture in favor of " look at all the stuff I have that you need"...if you follow.

Now, as for "civilian" distributors ( Wal-Mart, Gun stores, etc), I speculate that many will be depleated, many won't...it would be hit and miss on supply searches...

Again, stockpiling ones own ammo cache prior to crisis ( I have 2,000 + rounds, various calibers ATM, and hope to double that by summers end) and knowing how to re-load ammo ( most people will be grabbing shells, not re-loading supplies in the initial panic) will help insure you have adequet ammunition.

All of my guns are chambered in military rounds.

5.56
7.62
7.62x54R

then my hand guns
9
40
357

and I really want to buy a .44 mag but that will be down the road I also want a .45acp as well

Crom wrote:

coolyo294 wrote:Actually, if the Survivalist is anyone to go by, one man and a gun can successfully defend themselves for a very, very long time in Zion.

Yeah and when the Russians tried to invade Finland in WWII they got their asses handed to them because they got bottle necked alongside some mountains, and it was during the winter on Finland's home front. However, in this day and age, if the end of days happens, just think of everyone current in service will have access to when all the world governments fall. Sure, a trained person with a gun in a fortified position with enough ammo can defend them self, that I agree with you. Given an apocalypse situation I don't think that would be such a good idea. I think a mobile survivalist would have better chances than a guy held up somewhere. There very well be some ex military people well armed that will RPG your strong hold.

I am not saying this will happen, but I still think you need to always assume the worst in an apocalypse sort of situation. Zombies, not very smart, you can hold yourself up and pick them off. Granted you have the fortifications and ammo to do so, the living are much more cunning.

Everything is really situational, a static defense ( fort/ stronghold) has it merits in that, once secured and stocked, your "zombie concerns" are fairly limited, so long as supplies hold out, and if your in an area with limited zombie presence...forays into small civilian centers to search for supplies could be achieved with minimal risk ( though emphasis should be placed on trying to remain self sufficent...growing ones own food, etc)
And of course the human threat is ever present, the ability to repel/ hold off invading groups of scavengers would be nesacary ...off course you'd have the advantage of being inside a secured area...while they wouldn't,nearby zombies drawn by the sounds of combat may arrive and actually help you in this situation.
Of course if your breached, having an way out/fall back posissition is imperative....

Mobile Survivalist have the advantage in that being mobile leads to less chance of discovery ( other than by being spotted on the go), but has the huge drawback of always being out in the open, having to locate safe shelter daily ( you will have to sleep) and having to constantly forage for supplies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Crom wrote:Well also to add to the discussion of Ammo. Like I mentioned earlier there is both an ammunition factory and a gun factory in my city, however they don't advertise their address. You cannot look them up, you cannot google map them. It is somewhat common knowledge to what part of town the factories are in. However, they conceal themselves from the public. You would have to go over the district they are in to find them, and the district they are in is very industrial and there are a lot of warehouses in the area.

So, yes, ammo will be available because there is a ton in the US, but that doesn't mean we can access it during a crisis. Plus, the owners of said companies will probably horde it the second things go wrong because they know how valuable it will be. Think about it, during an apocalypse type situation just imagine the value of ammo?

I agree that private/military ammo manufaction facilities wouldn't be easy to locate ( and may be emptied if you did find them, though I doubt the military would bother with taking Civ. ammo stockpiles), and of course ammo along with food.water and "know how" will be the new "coin of the realm"...though I'd hope a single individule sitting on several million rounds would have enough foresight to understand that the distribution of those rounds benifits him more than simply hording them...but of course humans are human and could very well miss the larger picture in favor of " look at all the stuff I have that you need"...if you follow.

Now, as for "civilian" distributors ( Wal-Mart, Gun stores, etc), I speculate that many will be depleated, many won't...it would be hit and miss on supply searches...

Again, stockpiling ones own ammo cache prior to crisis ( I have 2,000 + rounds, various calibers ATM, and hope to double that by summers end) and knowing how to re-load ammo ( most people will be grabbing shells, not re-loading supplies in the initial panic) will help insure you have adequet ammunition.

All of my guns are chambered in military rounds.

5.56
7.62
7.62x54R

then my hand guns
9
40
357

and I really want to buy a .44 mag but that will be down the road I also want a .45acp as well

All of my current firearms are civilian...
.12 Gauge
9.MM
.45 ACP
.357 Magnum

Sold my SKS a while back.
Next purchase will be a Ruger Mini-14

I believe, and this is just my opinion, that it's best to stick with Civ. weapons, or weapons that can eat civ. ammo.

Kasrkai wrote:Ammo won't be an issue. In fact, I can't really see how it would be a problem at all. I don't see military forces being beaten by zombies anytime soon.

the military will run out of ammo real fast cause most likely they will be held up in their bases. and even if they try to do something like go out to kill all the zombies, by the time there a problem they will just get overrun.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:Ammo won't be an issue. In fact, I can't really see how it would be a problem at all. I don't see military forces being beaten by zombies anytime soon.

the military will run out of ammo real fast cause most likely they will be held up in their bases. and even if they try to do something like go out to kill all the zombies, by the time there a problem they will just get overrun.

Again, military response is speculative...
I would guess it would be a combination of Defend/ Engage.
I don't see the military running out of ammunition,at least not on a grand scale...but I do see problems ( potentialy) with how they may engage undead "forces"...
A great deal of modern military ofencive tactics are geared towards "shock and awe" ( bombing the gak out of an area), zombies wouldn't succumb to " shock and awe" as they can't be demoralized, and many modern " anti-personal" weapons would, in theory, have little affect on a horde of undead...a zombie with it's insides blown out, or limbs blown off...is still an active combatant ( if slightly debilitated).
The Military would have to re-think how it engages an undead enemy.

odd question; do you think the fact that their zombies instead of humans would make us adapt less. humans are always thinking of new ways to kill each other or if being invaded find ways to survive or escape. yet would them being zombies affect this.

the thing is you would think it wouldnt.you would think we could kill dumb things as well as we kill each other,yet people have tried to wipe out certain species of pests before and been unsuccessful.

lord commissar klimino wrote:odd question; do you think the fact that their zombies instead of humans would make us adapt less. humans are always thinking of new ways to kill each other or if being invaded find ways to survive or escape. yet would them being zombies affect this.

the thing is you would think it wouldnt.you would think we could kill dumb things as well as we kill each other,yet people have tried to wipe out certain species of pests before and been unsuccessful.

I don't believe it would make us adapt " less", in fact I believe it would give us no choice other than to adapt to a completely new set of " rules'...in virtually all aspects.

FITZ

I agree with you on all levels, but I think the fundamental difference between us is that I have little faith in humanity coming together to help one another come post apocalypse, all the nice and helping people will be killed by the greedy thoughtless people. I agree with you on a strong hold, but man, fire can be an end all situation for your strong hold.

When I look at it as an against all odds, survive at no costs scenario I think about everything I could possibly do (with out bringing in ethics or morals here) to survive. Now would I do the lowest of the low to survive? I say no, that I would not, but I have never been in a situation where it is literally kill or be killed. I think that is the big x factor, and when looking into zombie culture/literature/film there is always a constant human element that betrays other humans, and sometimes for the most petty of things.

So, I say be mobile, stay low, steal if you have to, avoid all confrontation, avoid everything until it passes over to a point where you can settle down, then maybe band with people and start over. I can hunt, fish, start a fire, etc, but I am not really a ranger or out door person. I am city folk who just happen to have some rednecks in my family that taught me such things.

Otherwise I think your logic is sound and your ideas are good, and I would be all aboard if we had to team up in the zombie apocalypse, but I am a very skeptical person by nature and I would always keep an eye on everyone around me at all times, and make the hard decisions if needed with out a second thought. My intentions would be for the greater good for the most part, but like you and I both already know it is all situational.

Crom wrote:FITZ

I agree with you on all levels, but I think the fundamental difference between us is that I have little faith in humanity coming together to help one another come post apocalypse, all the nice and helping people will be killed by the greedy thoughtless people. I agree with you on a strong hold, but man, fire can be an end all situation for your strong hold.

When I look at it as an against all odds, survive at no costs scenario I think about everything I could possibly do (with out bringing in ethics or morals here) to survive. Now would I do the lowest of the low to survive? I say no, that I would not, but I have never been in a situation where it is literally kill or be killed. I think that is the big x factor, and when looking into zombie culture/literature/film there is always a constant human element that betrays other humans, and sometimes for the most petty of things.

So, I say be mobile, stay low, steal if you have to, avoid all confrontation, avoid everything until it passes over to a point where you can settle down, then maybe band with people and start over. I can hunt, fish, start a fire, etc, but I am not really a ranger or out door person. I am city folk who just happen to have some rednecks in my family that taught me such things.

Otherwise I think your logic is sound and your ideas are good, and I would be all aboard if we had to team up in the zombie apocalypse, but I am a very skeptical person by nature and I would always keep an eye on everyone around me at all times, and make the hard decisions if needed with out a second thought. My intentions would be for the greater good for the most part, but like you and I both already know it is all situational.

Honestly, I don't have a great deal of faith in humanity, and readily agree with you that there would be a vast amount of remaining humans who would simply be reduced to " survive at others expense" mentality.
However, I also believe in the human condition to " bond", to seek out and join " like minded individules" ...which is why I think you'd find groups of humans banding together for survival as well...

Really, the only thing remotely like a " zombie apocalypse situation" that I base my belife on, is my post Katrina experiance ...and of course that was no where near the same thing, however...the mind set amongst those in the effected area were simalar in that you had groups who basicly took on a " get what I can...feth everyone else" mind set, and groups that sort of looked out for each other/ banded together.
Now, of course the situation was very different, we didn't have to contend with walking corpses trying to eat us....and most of us knew that "help" was coming ( sooner or later), but it did give me the oppertunity to witness first hand how people will behave when the "machine" breaks down...and in many cases ..it wasn't pretty.

I just hope...and in fact it is hope, that in a apoc situation...I would be able to conduct myself in a manner that, while ensuring my own survival, would also benifit those around me...at least those deserving of benifit.

FITZZ wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:odd question; do you think the fact that their zombies instead of humans would make us adapt less. humans are always thinking of new ways to kill each other or if being invaded find ways to survive or escape. yet would them being zombies affect this.

the thing is you would think it wouldnt.you would think we could kill dumb things as well as we kill each other,yet people have tried to wipe out certain species of pests before and been unsuccessful.

I don't believe it would make us adapt " less", in fact I believe it would give us no choice other than to adapt to a completely new set of " rules'...in virtually all aspects.

but now that i think on it more thats why more of us would die. humans have been killing each other for a long time,so we know how to change to situations like that. but zombies would be a whole new ball game. yeah,there would be survivors,and those who die just cause they were caught off guard. im mean if i saw a bunch of zombie,id be shocked,you would be shocked,we would just be able to snap to action sooner cause we have embedded it in us what to do in that situation while most people haven't. i think it will just depend. most people dont think about it,so they dont have the mind set to really even think of the world ending,let alone changing for it. they just wouldn't know how to adapt like us. there would be a few who do adapt just cause they are just fast thinkers,but most wouldn't. so i in summary more think most wouldn't adapt.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:odd question; do you think the fact that their zombies instead of humans would make us adapt less. humans are always thinking of new ways to kill each other or if being invaded find ways to survive or escape. yet would them being zombies affect this.

the thing is you would think it wouldnt.you would think we could kill dumb things as well as we kill each other,yet people have tried to wipe out certain species of pests before and been unsuccessful.

I don't believe it would make us adapt " less", in fact I believe it would give us no choice other than to adapt to a completely new set of " rules'...in virtually all aspects.

but now that i think on it more thats why more of us would die. humans have been killing each other for a long time,so we know how to change to situations like that. but zombies would be a whole new ball game. yeah,there would be survivors,and those who die just cause they were caught off guard. im mean if i saw a bunch of zombie,id be shocked,you would be shocked,we would just be able to snap to action sooner cause we have embedded it in us what to do in that situation while most people haven't. i think it will just depend. most people dont think about it,so they dont have the mind set to really even think of the world ending,let alone changing for it. they just wouldn't know how to adapt like us. there would be a few who do adapt just cause they are just fast thinkers,but most wouldn't. so i in summary more think most wouldn't adapt.

I don't think there's really any way to determine how people ( overall) would react...I mean, there would obviously be panic,and a break down of order...but if it's one thing I've figured out where people are concerned...you can never be "sure" of how they'll act/ re-act.

One thing I have wondered about is, given the general public's knowledge of zombies ( inasmuch as most people know what a zombie is), would it serve as an asset should an actual zombie outbreak occur..
Think about it, in the books/ films...no one ever has a clue ( at first) just what in the hell they're dealing with, they're always like " People have gone crazy and are eating each other"...or what have you...no one ever stands up and say's " Yeah...those are zombies...shoot them in the head and whatever you do...don't get bit."
So, given that a fair amount of the population know about zombies ( at least on a base level) would that serve as an advantage to mankind...I mean after the initial " Holy Gak...this is really happening!" factor wore off...
I tend to believe it would.

FITZZ wrote:

I don't think there's really any way to determine how people ( overall) would react...I mean, there would obviously be panic,and a break down of order...but if it's one thing I've figured out where people are concerned...you can never be "sure" of how they'll act/ re-act.

One thing I have wondered about is, given the general public's knowledge of zombies ( inasmuch as most people know what a zombie is), would it serve as an asset should an actual zombie outbreak occur..
Think about it, in the books/ films...no one ever has a clue ( at first) just what in the hell they're dealing with, they're always like " People have gone crazy and are eating each other"...or what have you...no one ever stands up and say's " Yeah...those are zombies...shoot them in the head and whatever you do...don't get bit."
So, given that a fair amount of the population know about zombies ( at least on a base level) would that serve as an advantage to mankind...I mean after the initial " Holy Gak...this is really happening!" factor wore off...
I tend to believe it would.

i think it would be overall. i also think it would make some people freak out even more. i also think that cause we know about it we might have a small chance of stopping it from b=getting bad cause everyone knows what to do instead of not having any clue.

Exactly, knowing what they are from the onset provides one with the knowledge of how to destroy your targets and avoid becoming infected in the first place.... both of which would be key to halting an outbreak while it is still in the early stages...

Now, of course in the cases such as those depicted in " 28 days/weeks later" containment becomes much more dificult...as the virus spreads/ infected become active combatants much faster.
I honestly believe that if humanity ever faces hordes of flesh eating monsters...it will be in the form of infected humans rather than the re-animated dead....and of course since I live scant moments from the CDC..I'll probably have front row seats.

FITZZ wrote: Exactly, knowing what they are from the onset provides one with the knowledge of how to destroy your targets and avoid becoming infected in the first place.... both of which would be key to halting an outbreak while it is still in the early stages...

Now, of course in the cases such as those depicted in " 28 days/weeks later" containment becomes much more dificult...as the virus spreads/ infected become active combatants much faster.
I honestly believe that if humanity ever faces hordes of flesh eating monsters...it will be in the form of infected humans rather than the re-animated dead....and of course since I live scant moments from the CDC..I'll probably have front row seats.

i live in suburbs,so to be honest i wont be seeing a giant *ss horde of zombies anytime soon. that will be the cities. and as ive said,rabies.modified rabies.it just seems the most like what we imagine zombies to be like.except to whole 'dieing of brain melt' after a few days or whatever.

Your still going to have people refusing to believe, but I do sorta laugh in the movies when everyone is going "WTF IS GOING ON OMG!!!!" given the saturation zombie movies and books has reached.

Hopefully people will have a clue. Though to be honest, the head is a mighty small target to be aiming for.

Sckitzo wrote:Your still going to have people refusing to believe, but I do sorta laugh in the movies when everyone is going "WTF IS GOING ON OMG!!!!" given the saturation zombie movies and books has reached.

Hopefully people will have a clue. Though to be honest, the head is a mighty small target to be aiming for.

whet else are we going to shoot at anyways? shooting the body dosent kill them. and the legs are even harder to shoot then the god d*mn head! we have no were else to even shoot! thats probably why it became 'shoot the head!' cause its easier than trying to shoot and disable the other limbs!

Sckitzo wrote:Your still going to have people refusing to believe, but I do sorta laugh in the movies when everyone is going "WTF IS GOING ON OMG!!!!" given the saturation zombie movies and books has reached.

Hopefully people will have a clue. Though to be honest, the head is a mighty small target to be aiming for.

It really is...and will take people getting used to shooting before they get hits..

True story, my Brother and I, a few years ago, were trying to perfect our " zombie head shot" skills...
We gathered a bunch of those styrofoam heads, the kind used for holding wigs, and headed to my Uncles farm ( which is where we often did our target shooting)...
We set up the heads ( on rebar) at various distances and started taking shots with various firearms...shotguns, no problem, pistols and rifles ...took a while...and of course these targets didn't move.

The funny thing was, a Sheriff's Deputy showed up to investigate all the shooting...after a quick check on papers, he asked why we were shooting at the styrofoam heads...the look on his face when my Brother told him it was in case of a Zombie outbreak was priceless..