Shotgun?

[ydoaPs]

With the recent popularity of zombie movies, I started thinking.

 

At what point in a pandemic is a shotgun an appropriate defense against the disease? How bad would this disease have to be?

[foodchain]

With the recent popularity of zombie movies, I started thinking.

 

At what point in a pandemic is a shotgun an appropriate defense against the disease? How bad would this disease have to be?

 

Well in most zombie movies I have watched its usually a 12 gauge that gets used. I think that would do a lot of damage, but if you have to get head shots I think I would prefer a 9mm or some other smaller gun. I think a 9mm would be nice because of how much ammo you can have in a mag, plus how much you could carry, plus chance of finding more.

 

Personally I would just avoid social interaction and choose not to be found in the case of some virus like the T virus, but if I did come into contact with people, I know I would think about escape. I found in earlier resident evil games that on the harder settings avoidance was better then confrontation, but thats just a game even if its the best of survival horror.

[CaptainPanic]

If the disease can be transmitted by air, then a shotgun is the last thing you need... If there is a barrier (like glass) between you and the sick person, you'll just destroy the containment. If there is no barrier, you're too late anyway.

 

If the disease cannot be transmitted by air, then you have nothing to fear... assuming sick people won't run after you like zombies do.

 

Please note that in zombie movies you have to get bitten, and zombies actively and relentlessly chase people, which justifies the use of close-range violence against them...

 

Diseases usually don't work that way.

 

So, my answer to your question is: never

[ydoaPs]

Please note that in zombie movies you have to get bitten, and zombies actively and relentlessly chase people, which justifies the use of close-range violence against them...

 

Diseases usually don't work that way.

 

What if it is some terrible mutation of rabies?

[Syntho-sis]

I actually had that idea for a novel or a screenplay..

 

Mutated rabies...I mean think about it. It's the only thing even remotely close to a real zombie disease.

 

Well that and Solanum... LOL

[Moontanman]

What if it is some terrible mutation of rabies?

 

Oh! You mean like in the book World War Z? Damn things were difficult to get rid of, they almost took down a nuclear sub underwater! Great book if you're into zombies, I would prefer to avoid them if possible but a good twelve gauge pump with sabots and a nine mil with a 14 shot clip should do the trick. I'd want the bands that go around your shoulders and hold shells for the shot gun (I can't remember what they are called), two one of each shoulder and a back pack full of cartridges for the nine mil but avoiding them is the best defense as you find out in the book.

[Syntho-sis]

Oh! You mean like in the book World War Z? Damn things were difficult to get rid of, they almost took down a nuclear sub underwater! Great book if you're into zombies, I would prefer to avoid them if possible but a good twelve gauge pump with sabots and a nine mil with a 14 shot clip should do the trick. I'd want the bands that go around your shoulders and hold shells for the shot gun (I can't remember what they are called), two one of each shoulder and a back pack full of cartridges for the nine mil but avoiding them is the best defense as you find out in the book.

 

Read The Zombie survival Guide or something like that, by Max Brooks.

 

Great waste of time...

 

Learn alot of Machetes though..

[Moontanman]

Read The Zombie survival Guide or something like that, by Max Brooks.

 

Great waste of time...

 

Learn alot of Machetes though..

 

World War Z is a follow up book by the same guy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z

[insane_alien]

actually shot guns would be bad in a zombie outbreak.

 

in most if not all zombie literature, you can become infected via contact with bodily fluids, ie blood.

 

a shotgun blast to the undead cranium will splatter blood everywhere, front and back, as well as a fair amount of aerosolized blood that could still potentially carry the virus. this means whoever was near the zombie, and very likely the shooter him/herself would be infected if not properly protected against such an effect.

 

a much better weapon would be a flamethrower, sterilizes any droplets that may come off the zombie.

[Moontanman]

Good point about the shotgun but flame throwers are ineffectual, zombies don't feel pain or care about flames. A man with a flame thrower would be quickly overwhelmed.

[ydoaPs]

Good point about the shotgun but flame throwers are ineffectual, zombies don't feel pain or care about flames. A man with a flame thrower would be quickly overwhelmed.

 

Zombies may not feel pain, but they do burn. Regardless, we're not talking about mythical zombies, we're talking about a theoretical pandemic the likes of a mutated Rabies virus with no known cure. Rabies victims, iirc, DO feel pain.

[insane_alien]

who gives a crap about inflicting pain, it'll still take a zombie down and more, it will cremate the body enough to render it sterile.

 

ofcourse, this weapon should not be used to stand off zombies, but if you're doing that then you're being an idiot. you want to be mobile since mobility tends to be a weakness of most zombies.

[Moontanman]

Zombies may not feel pain, but they do burn. Regardless, we're not talking about mythical zombies, we're talking about a theoretical pandemic the likes of a mutated Rabies virus with no known cure. Rabies victims, iirc, DO feel pain.

 

This is true but contrary to popular belief rabies victims do not chase down people and try to bite them. Dogs with rabies do become irritable but they do not chase you down to bite you, they become fearful of light and sounds, irritable and prone to bite if messed with but they do not roam looking for more victims to infect.

[insane_alien]

it doesn't have to be rabies. just a disease that produces symptoms similar to those seen in zombie flicks. look up 28days later, that sort of thing.

[Moontanman]

it doesn't have to be rabies. just a disease that produces symptoms similar to those seen in zombie flicks. look up 28days later, that sort of thing.

 

Assuming that, then a flame thrower would indeed be a good defense, but they are difficult to buy in a hurry. I've never seen one in pawn shops but lots of shotguns and pistols.

 

We have how ever completely gone off the original topic, sorry Yodaps. The morality involved is tricky. do you shoot someone you suspect of having a super flu? How far you could go and be on the moral high ground has a lot to do with how low you are comfortable on that particular hill.

 

Do you refuse food and water to anyone and stay inside your house (or bunker) and let the rest of the population suffer or do you try to help and risk infection? Would you kill to keep someone with obvious symptoms away or do you shoot anyone who simply shows up because they might be infected?

Edited February 12, 2010 by Moontanman

[insane_alien]

supersoaker, plus petrol, plus lighter.

 

not easy to buy premade, but damn easy to cobble together in short order. and lets face it, most weapons will be improvised at some point during the crisis.

[Moontanman]

supersoaker, plus petrol, plus lighter.

 

not easy to buy premade, but damn easy to cobble together in short order. and lets face it, most weapons will be improvised at some point during the crisis.

 

A super soaker? I think I'll let you man that gun, but you are of course correct, the human ability to cobble a weapon together from objects at hand will come out to most people.

[Rickdog]

Although a battle against "zombies", must be a very interesting issue, imho, it doesn`t have anything to do with biomedical ethics.

 

I hate acting as a spammer in a forum where I`m a relatively new member, but in this case, as a person who is related to the practice of medicine (I`m a Veterinarian), I find it completely offensive, the mixing of Science Fiction with reality in an area of science where the objective is to find the cure of disease or illment, and most of all when you`re supposed to be refering to "ethics" on the practice of it.

 

To me this whole topic should be sent to Speculations or as I said before, to a Science Fiction scenario.

 

[ydoaPs]

To me this whole topic should be sent to Speculations or as I said before, to a Science Fiction scenario.

 

 

Why? It's very possible for there to be a incurable pandemic of a 'rage virus' similar to but more powerful than rabies. This is a legitimate ethical question. Many ethical questions are 'speculative.' By your post above, you'd have a large portion of Ethics sent from the textbooks to the trash heap.

[Sisyphus]

Although a battle against "zombies", must be a very interesting issue, imho, it doesn`t have anything to do with biomedical ethics.

 

I hate acting as a spammer in a forum where I`m a relatively new member, but in this case, as a person who is related to the practice of medicine (I`m a Veterinarian), I find it completely offensive, the mixing of Science Fiction with reality in an area of science where the objective is to find the cure of disease or illment, and most of all when you`re supposed to be refering to "ethics" on the practice of it.

 

To me this whole topic should be sent to Speculations or as I said before, to a Science Fiction scenario.

 

 

What if the question was rephrased like this:

 

Hypothetically, there is an epidemic of a disease that makes people lose the capacity for complex thought and violently and relentlessly attack the uninfected. It apparently spreads mostly by biting. There is currently no known cure.

 

Under what circumstances would it be ethical to kill these people by whatever violent means are available? Presumably not if you're talking about a sedated patient in a hospital, when it's not clear if a cure is possible. And presumably it is when infected outnumber uninfected by a thousand to one, civilization has collapsed, and an army of them is chasing you down the street. So when does it become acceptable?

 

That's what I think ydoaps meant. It's sort of a combination euthanasia/self-defense question.

[insane_alien]

i'd say it is when containment is lost.

 

and by containment, I mean when the infected are no longer being restrained effectively.

 

this could apply to many situations,

 

1/ if an infected gets loose in the ambulance, okay for the paramedics to permanently disable the threat.

 

2/ if one or more infected get loose in a hospital

 

3/ if the infected are on the streets. particularly if there are uninfected around.

 

4/ when the emergency services can no longer secure any more of them due to high numbers.

 

its unsavoury, but the other result is in massive spread of infection and ultimately the death of many millions more.

[Rickdog]

Getting my "nerves" back to reason, I`ll try to add a couple of cents to this discussion, but stop talking about "ZOMBIES", Mr. Max Brooks creation is only fiction and has nothing of any real scientific argument in it, but only as entertainment and light reading. Now back to topic.

Why? It's very possible for there to be a incurable pandemic of a 'rage virus' similar to but more powerful than rabies. This is a legitimate ethical question. Many ethical questions are 'speculative.' By your post above, you'd have a large portion of Ethics sent from the textbooks to the trash heap.

 

In Public health, there is already in existence, what you call a "Sanitary Rifle", which is a rifle or a gun, that fires bullets directly to the brain an kills on the act without the suffering of whom you`re shooting, not like a shotgun as suggested in this topic. The use of the "sanitary rifle", is used only on animals, not people, but only when you can be sure that its use, can allow the stopping of an outbrake of a certain disease that can turn into an Epidemic of high costs for the economy and public health. Once the epidemic, and morover a Pandemic, has happened, its pointless the use of it. But who decides, when to use it or not ?, Only by the commitment of Health authorities, after a thorough and complete study of any particular situation. Not by any person, who can take arbitrary decissions, without really knowing what he is dealing with.

 

In relation to ethics being speculative, I`ll give you that point. But speculations are done based on a real life issue scenario, not on fiction or fantasy.

 

What if the question was rephrased like this:

Hypothetically, there is an epidemic of a disease that makes people lose the capacity for complex thought and violently and relentlessly attack the uninfected. It apparently spreads mostly by biting. There is currently no known cure.

 

Hypothetically ?

Well it is highly speculative, isn`t it ?....

The rest is only fiction.

 

Under what circumstances would it be ethical to kill these people by whatever violent means are available?

 

NEVER. The only time in history, where a nation decided to take matters against the illness of people (by getting ridd of them, killing them humanely btw), was perfomed by the Nazzi`s prior to WW2, against mental disorders, Crippled or Paraplegic patients and incurable patients. But after a while they stopped doing it, because they understood that it was wrong....

 

 

That's what I think ydoaps meant. It's sort of a combination euthanasia/self-defense question.

 

Euthanasia, is a medical procedure, only used in cases of uncurable illness in order to prevent the prolonged suffering of an individual, who is already suffering. It can never be associated with "self-defence".

Edited February 13, 2010 by Rickdog

[ydoaPs]

In relation to ethics being speculative, I`ll give you that point. But speculations are done based on a real life issue scenario, not on fiction or fantasy.

They are? How often do madmen kidnap people and place them in separate rooms each with a button that would kill the other? How often do people find a track changing switch for a train just as a train is about to kill a group of people? Those are most certainly NOT real life scenarios. The pandemic in question is just as 'real life' as those and many other scenarios used in ethics.

 

Hypothetically ?

Well it is highly speculative, isn`t it ?....

The rest is only fiction.

 

It's only as speculative as the rest of ethical philosophy. If you're so against this discussion, why don't you close this tab and never reopen this thread? No one is making you take part in this conversation. If you want to add to the discussion, fine. Please, stop hijacking the thread.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What if the question was rephrased like this:

 

Hypothetically, there is an epidemic of a disease that makes people lose the capacity for complex thought and violently and relentlessly attack the uninfected. It apparently spreads mostly by biting. There is currently no known cure.

 

Under what circumstances would it be ethical to kill these people by whatever violent means are available? Presumably not if you're talking about a sedated patient in a hospital, when it's not clear if a cure is possible. And presumably it is when infected outnumber uninfected by a thousand to one, civilization has collapsed, and an army of them is chasing you down the street. So when does it become acceptable?

 

That's what I think ydoaps meant. It's sort of a combination euthanasia/self-defense question.

That's pretty much spot on. The mention of zombies was really only to give a popular reference to the idea and to provide the source of the thought process for the question.

Edited February 13, 2010 by ydoaPs
Consecutive posts merged.

[Moontanman]

I have to admit that in the scenario of a Rage type virus or other real threat to my personal safety any of the "infected" coming after me would find me completely comfortable fairly low on the hill of moral high ground. Now if I could easily get away I see no reason not to climb as high as possible but when it comes to defending your own or some else's life I see no reason to allow anyone to take me out because someone else says it's wrong to kill. (think about that if you ever decide to rob my house:doh:)

 

Now going out and hunting them down is not a part of what I am saying, but self defense is well within my moral limits.

[insane_alien]

hunting them down may actually be morally superior to leaving them be.

 

to leave them roaming free increases the risk of secondary outbreaks resulting in more deaths. with the lack of any known or suspected cure or facilities to capture and restrain the infected, elimination may be the best option.

 

of course, by this time it will likely be known whether there is any irreversable component of the disease(ie, brain damage) which should simplify the moral choice a lot.